Varge as Plural - Similar Example - Chandrashekhar ji

[Guest guest]

Shri Chandrasekharji,

 

of course I know that you prefer the

view to watch Karakamsha I the Navamsha chart,

which matches my view.

 

Your name was mentioned just to

group all the wise astrologers together,

the whole Group actually,interested in this thread,

and give their views and arrive to a consensus,

which does not possibly seem coming.

 

regards,

Bhaskar.

 

 

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Bhaskar,

>

> I wrote about aspects in Vargas and not karakamsha. Actually I have

> written about how the shlokas suggest that karakamsha is to be seen in

> Navamsha charts. The two are different issues.

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> Bhaskar wrote:

> >

> > Drear Chandrasekharji,Pradeepji and other scholars,

> >

> > Please, I could not understand how the karakmsha

> > has to be seen from the Rashi chart, and not

> > from the Navamsha chart. I thought all

> > the wonderful effects of planets placed in various

> > positions from the Karakamsha including Kaivalya,

> > are to be judged from the Karakamsha postion

> > in Navamsha.

> >

> > That means now my Kaivalya is denied to me,

> > as per this new learning.Can some reference wih respect

> > to the ancient shlokas or the ancient authors be

> > given to me for checking this, as this involves my

> > own chart, and have personal interest in learning

> > the actual method, but with pramana.

> >

> > regards,

> > Bhaskar.

> >

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > I see your point of view. anyway even within shadvargas we look

for the

> > > degree of a planet falling within a certain span of degrees and

not one

> > > particular bindu.

> > >

> > > I agree that rashi is a Varga and my question is if one can look at

> > > aspects in one Varga why not in other Vargas? I am sure you know

that

> > > personally I use navamsha to find only the strength of grahas, but

> > there

> > > is no reason to rule out aspects in Navamshas or other charts

totally.

> > > One of the raj yogas mentioned by Parashara talks of aspect of

shubha

> > > grahas on the karakamsha and Lagnamsha which should also be

tenanted by

> > > Shubha grahas, leaving no doubt as to where the aspects are to

be seen.

> > > And for the record the translation to that effect is by an eminent

> > > astrologer who was Professor of astrology in Banaras Hindu

University.

> > >

> > > Take care,

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > >

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > >

> > > > Lagna as a bindu was mentioned for driving home the shadvarga

> > > > calculations,if any members were having doubts.For shadvarga

> > > > calculation of planets too we need the bindu or degree of a planet

> > > > within a rashi, as you are aware.

> > > >

> > > > We have to look at Rashis.This is so because Rashi (one 30 degree

> > > > sector ) is the first varga.As this Varga is synonymous with Bhava

> > > > houses are analysed w.r to Rashis.

> > > >

> > > > Respect

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > If lagna is a bindu a you propose, and nothing more, then

how can

> > > > it

> > > > > indicate an entire rasi? Now if this is correct, and technically

> > > > it is,

> > > > > then by your reckoning there is no need to look at rasis too. Is

> > > > that

> > > > > what you mean to say?

> > > > >

> > > > > If shadvargas are not related to the portion falling in the

lagna

> > > > rasis,

> > > > > which holds the degree of lagna Madhya, then it appears we

must ask

> > > > the

> > > > > sages to redefine Vargas. I doubt they need our advise.

> > > > >

> > > > > Take care,

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > There was a purpose.I just wanted to explain it to the

members if

> > > > > > some of them are not sure on what shadvarga of lagna is

and how it

> > > > > > is calculated.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As you have said Vargas are divisions of a rashi.But

shadvargas of

> > > > > > Lagna is not the Vargas falling in Lagna.Here lagna is not a

> > > > > > rashi,but a bindu.Vargas are found from a degree.The

degree of a

> > > > > > planet or degree of lagna.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As you may know we do notneed six charts to dtermine

shadvargas of

> > > > > > lagna.All we need is the degree of lagna and the rashi rising.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Let us take an example.Lagna is at 11 degrees in dhanu.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Let us find the shadvargas of Lagna with th help of rising

rashi

> > > > and

> > > > > > degree.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 1st Varga - The Rashi in which Lagna bindu is falling - Dhanu

> > > > > > 2nd Varga - The Hora in which Lagna bindu is falling - As 11

> > > > degrees

> > > > > > falls in the 1st half of dhanu - Surya Hora

> > > > > > 3rd Varga - The drekkana in which Lagna bindu is falling -

As 11

> > > > > > degrees falls in the 2nd 1/3rd of dhanu - Drekkana is Mesha.

> > > > > > 4th Varga - As 11 degrees falls in the 3rd saptamsha ,Lagna

> > > > saptamsha

> > > > > > is Kumbha.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Similraly - Lagna navamsha is Karka,Lagna Trimshamsha is

dhanu.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thus the purpose of whole exercise was to say that when we say

> > > > > > shadvargas of Lagna or Mars,it does not mean the rashis

owned by

> > > > > > Lagna or Mars.But the Rashis on towhich they are placed,having

> > > > > > hora,drekkana etc etc.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Vargas of Mars in the 2nd Rashi from karakamsha too is no

> > > > differet.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > There are many meanings,that is why Rashi is called as

> > > > > > Kshethra /Riksha /havana etc.But i don't think sage will

use the

> > > > > > saword to represent something belonging to same class.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > For example sage will not use ''sva'' to mean 2nd as well as

> > > > 3rd.Then

> > > > > > we cannot interpret.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Similarly Rashi and navamsha will not be represented using the

> > > > same

> > > > > > word.Rashi/Kshethra/Riksha/Bhvana/Lagna etc are synonyms

an ifthey

> > > > > > are used for navamsha then what is the whole purpose behind

> > > > defintion.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > On the other hand sva was used for iems from different

classes.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > This wasin mind while making such a statement.I will try

my best

> > > > to

> > > > > > polish my style of writing.I accept my limitations in writing.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I have not understood your question or the intent behind

that.

> > > > The

> > > > > > > Vargas are divisions, within a rasi, ruled by different

grahas.

> > > > So

> > > > > > if

> > > > > > > one wants t look at Vargas falling in lagna the shad

Vargas will

> > > > > > mean

> > > > > > > the rasi equivalent occurring at lagna position in the 6

> > > > divisional

> > > > > > > charts of Rashi, Hora, Dreshkana, Navamsha,

Dwaadashamsha and

> > > > > > > Trimshamsha. Or at least this is what I have learnt.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Sages did not use words in vain or context. I agree. But

that

> > > > does

> > > > > > not

> > > > > > > mean they used the words to mean only one thing always.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I never said that the meaning can be changed to suit our

> > > > > > convenience and

> > > > > > > I would request you not to attribute such sentiments to me.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > However I do say that word are used in different contexts to

> > > > mean

> > > > > > > different things, especially in Sanskrit texts of Jyotish. I

> > > > have,

> > > > > > just

> > > > > > > a few minutes back use of " Sva " with different meaning at

> > > > different

> > > > > > > places by Varaha Mihira to you. I hope you do not also

attribute

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > words that you attributed to me to the venerated Varaha

Mihira.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar,.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Pls tell me what you mean by shadvargas of lagna.How

do you

> > > > find

> > > > > > > > them.Do you go by ownership or placement

> > > > > > (Rashi/navamsha/dwadshamsha

> > > > > > > > etc).

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > There are shlokas in Varahamihiras text which says

,Okarkshe

> > > > > > > > Purushamshakae.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Which means in Ojarashi and Oja amsha.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > As per me sages will not use any words out of

context.If he

> > > > wants

> > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > say amsha he will mention it.He will not use Rashi to

mean as

> > > > > > amsha.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Ojarkshe is Oja Rashi.Similarly Paparkshe is Papa Rashi.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > If you want to say as per our conveninece we can

change the

> > > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > > of riksha/rashi/bhavana/bhavas as navamsha then i

cannot say

> > > > > > > > anything.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I can only respect your views.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I will tell you why that happens. You begin with quoting

> > > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > then give a sutra from Jaimini as being said by

Parashara.

> > > > > > > > > Interpretation of sutras is not the easiest of the

things,

> > > > more

> > > > > > so

> > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > Jaimini's Upadesha sutras. That the sutras use

KaTaPaYaadi

> > > > > > > > encryption

> > > > > > > > > makes them even more difficult to interpret. I am

sure you

> > > > have

> > > > > > > > noticed

> > > > > > > > > this when Sreenadh interpreted the KaTaPaYaadi Varga

in a

> > > > wrong

> > > > > > > > fashion.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Then there is your insistence to let Sanskrit

grammar give

> > > > a go

> > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > that can make interpretation of a shloka or sutra

fit your

> > > > > > > > proposition.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Any of the Shodasha Vargas of a rasi can be referred

to as

> > > > > > Varga,

> > > > > > > > but as

> > > > > > > > > far as I know in astrology, when one talks of Varga,

without

> > > > > > > > qualifying

> > > > > > > > > it, or Amshas that generally refers to navamsha or

> > > > > > Dwadashaamsha.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Another reason that we can not agree, or seem to

agree, is

> > > > that

> > > > > > > > you are

> > > > > > > > > reluctant to call a navamsha by the nomenclature

navamsha

> > > > rasi.

> > > > > > > > This

> > > > > > > > > makes it difficult to convey what I mean to say in

English

> > > > as

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > the language of the net and which both of us know. Now

> > > > since you

> > > > > > > > do not

> > > > > > > > > want to use the word Mesha navamsha as Mesha is a

rashi and

> > > > by

> > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > logic it can not be a navamsha, it becomes difficult to

> > > > convey

> > > > > > > > what I

> > > > > > > > > understand by the texts.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I will like to draw your attention to the literal

meaning

> > > > of the

> > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > rasi. It means a heap and nothing more. In astrology

since

> > > > it

> > > > > > > > > encompasses many stars that make up a nakshatra the

1/12th

> > > > > > > > division of

> > > > > > > > > the zodiac is called a Rasi. Or at least this is my

> > > > > > understanding

> > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > reason of using the word rasi for the 1/12th

division of the

> > > > > > > > zodiac.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I do not agree that by Chandra in Guru Varga it is meant

> > > > that

> > > > > > > > Varga of

> > > > > > > > > Chandra is being seen. To me we are talking about is

whether

> > > > > > > > Chandra is

> > > > > > > > > falling in the Varga of Guru in which ever rasi he is

> > > > occupying.

> > > > > > > > So in

> > > > > > > > > Navamsha we see whether Chandra is occupying Pisces or

> > > > > > Sagittarius

> > > > > > > > > navamsha. I also do not agree that there are Vargas of

> > > > Chandra

> > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > of any

> > > > > > > > > planet for that matter. The 16 Vargas that Parashara

talks

> > > > about

> > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > that of a Rasi, beginning from the Rashi itself.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > If the Vargas are not owned by different planets,

pray why

> > > > does

> > > > > > > > the sage

> > > > > > > > > tell us to see occupation of a friend, own etc. Varga to

> > > > assess

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > strength of a planet in the Varga concerned?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I have interacted with many astrologers of

yesteryears (with

> > > > > > > > respect to

> > > > > > > > > my age group) and have never found them claiming the

Vargas

> > > > to

> > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > only lagna and planets.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > If you insist that sage Parashara gave the SU.

52.- " Tatra

> > > > > > > > bhrigwongaraka

> > > > > > > > > varge paradarikaha " , perhaps you are referring to some

> > > > edition

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > BPHS

> > > > > > > > > that I do not have. However I do have that in the

umpteen

> > > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > texts on Jaimini that I do have in my library. And

by the

> > > > way,

> > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > scholars have interpreted that to mean 9th from

Karakamsha

> > > > and

> > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > the 2nd.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I do not agree that a graha can simultaneously

occupy the

> > > > Varga

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars, simultaneously, as is being suggested

> > > > whether in

> > > > > > > > rasi or

> > > > > > > > > in any of the Vargas. It could only occupy one or

the other.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I have seen you arguing in favor of looking at the

> > > > Shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > grahas Venus and Mars. I would like you to look at

all the

> > > > six

> > > > > > > > charts

> > > > > > > > > whose Vargas together are referred as Shadvargas and

try to

> > > > find

> > > > > > > > out

> > > > > > > > > whether they do indeed contain the 6 Vargas of Venus

and 6

> > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > Mars. I am sure that you will find them to contain

only 5

> > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > each of

> > > > > > > > > the grahas. Once you confirm this by looking at the

6 Vargas

> > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > self,

> > > > > > > > > tell me how one can look at Shadvargas of Venus or

Mars as

> > > > is

> > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > suggested to be the interpretation of the sutra that

you are

> > > > > > > > referring to.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > You may also be interested to know that Parashara

talks of

> > > > AK

> > > > > > > > falling in

> > > > > > > > > the Varga of Chandra, Mars or Venus also having the

roving

> > > > eye

> > > > > > on

> > > > > > > > others

> > > > > > > > > wives. So the combination of Venus and Mars being

the only

> > > > one

> > > > > > > > giving

> > > > > > > > > the roving eye for other's wives, that you are

advancing as

> > > > a

> > > > > > > > standalone

> > > > > > > > > principle, may not, necessarily, be the way the sage

looked

> > > > at

> > > > > > > > their

> > > > > > > > > interpretation.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Those were written by me.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I am very dissappointed to see that ,inspite of

repeating

> > > > > > numerus

> > > > > > > > > > times,you are unable to get what i am saying.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I am not talking about rashis lorded by shukra or Mars

> > > > here.I

> > > > > > am

> > > > > > > > > > talking about the shadvargas vargas of mars and

shukra.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Pls tell me what is the meaning of shadvargas or

simply

> > > > Varga

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > lagna.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > It is the rashi in which lagna is placed.The

navamshaka of

> > > > > > > > > > Lagna,Trimshamshaka of Lagna etc.Can we see any

lordship

> > > > as

> > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > say.Lagna does not own any rashi.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Similarly when we say vargas of Venus -It means

Rashi of

> > > > > > > > > > Venus,Hora,navamshaka,drekkana,trimshamshaka etc.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Shadvarga is never the rashi owned by a

planet.Then Lagna

> > > > can

> > > > > > > > never

> > > > > > > > > > have shadvarga.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say,Chandra in Guru Varga - We

> > > > are not

> > > > > > > > seeing

> > > > > > > > > > the shadvarga of Guru,but that of chandra.Is chandra

> > > > placed in

> > > > > > > > Guru

> > > > > > > > > > Rashi?Is Chandra navamshaka in Guru Rashi.Is Chandra

> > > > > > > > Trimshamshaka in

> > > > > > > > > > Guru Rashi etc is what we check.If so chandras vargas

> > > > fall in

> > > > > > > > guru

> > > > > > > > > > rashis or we say chandra is in guruvargas.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > For the same reason schoplars of yesteryears

always say

> > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > for our natal Lagna and Planets.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > On the other hand you are taking them as owned by a

> > > > > > planet.Every

> > > > > > > > > > shadvarga that derive is like that.You may check

this with

> > > > > > shri

> > > > > > > > > > Narasimha,how he is deriving it for his software.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > For the same reason Bhrigu and Angara can have Varga

> > > > together

> > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > Rashi which is 2nd from Karakamsha.Sage clearly talks

> > > > about

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > vargas from both.Moreover the next shloka is

talking about

> > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > Venus together or aspecting the 2nd from karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we go by your explanation,we

have to

> > > > opt

> > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > just one among shukra or Mars which is not

proper.Their

> > > > Joint

> > > > > > > > > > influence creates sexual drive.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I request you to kindly read this with care.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Rspect

> > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > The below remarks are not from my mail at all. I

do not

> > > > know

> > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > think I would write that. I am sure you know

that this

> > > > is

> > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > my

> > > > > > > > > > style

> > > > > > > > > > > of writing at all.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > " >From my experience -Mars + Venus creates certin

> > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why are you

going for

> > > > the

> > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > owned by

> > > > > > > > > > > just one of them and that too without a

planetary link

> > > > is

> > > > > > > > really

> > > > > > > > > > > worrying me.Shri Rath has translated so,i

agree.But i

> > > > have

> > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will definitely correct

> > > > this

> > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > benfit

> > > > > > > > > > > of jyotish community. "

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > As to why I said they could not be having their

Vargas

> > > > > > > > together in

> > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > rasi or Bhava does not need any deeper

explanation. If

> > > > you

> > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > looking

> > > > > > > > > > > at the 2nd from Karakamsha in the rasi chart, as you

> > > > think

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > right, you

> > > > > > > > > > > could not have both Mesha and Vrishabha or Tula and

> > > > > > Vrishchika

> > > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > 2nd from the Karakamsha, is that not so?

Similarly if in

> > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > chart

> > > > > > > > > > > the 2nd from Karakamsha is to be seen, the 2nd

could be

> > > > not

> > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > navamshas.

> > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I though you meant so.Because in subsequent

lines we

> > > > can

> > > > > > see

> > > > > > > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > and Karakamsha being used for the same

purpose.But if

> > > > you

> > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > there are other places where swamsha is used

for say

> > > > > > > > > > Lagnamsha ,then

> > > > > > > > > > > > i can trust you if you can point me to that. This

> > > > should

> > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > be a

> > > > > > > > > > > > problem and in no way it will affect us.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars can ofcourse have their Vargas in a

> > > > single

> > > > > > > > rashi or

> > > > > > > > > > > > Bhava.Venus can have navamsha there,Mars can have

> > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > there,Venus can have Trimshamsha there,Mars

can have

> > > > > > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > there,they both can have drekkana there etc etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Thus sage is talking about Bhrigu and Angara

both (as

> > > > you

> > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > identified gramattically) having varga there

and it is

> > > > > > very

> > > > > > > > much

> > > > > > > > > > > > possible.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > If you note the next line -Sage is talking

about both

> > > > > > Venus

> > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > joining or aspecting the 2nd from Karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >From my experience -Mars + Venus creates certin

> > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why are you

going for

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > owned by just one of them and that too without a

> > > > planetary

> > > > > > > > link is

> > > > > > > > > > > > really worrying me.Shri Rath has translated so,i

> > > > > > agree.But i

> > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will definitely

correct

> > > > this

> > > > > > > > for the

> > > > > > > > > > > > benfit of jyotish community.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I am surprised as to why you say so.That they

cannot

> > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > together.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > Pardeep

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I have never said that I do not think that

Swamsha

> > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > different where the context demands so. At

the same

> > > > > > time I

> > > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > grammar can be put to rest to in the name of

> > > > context,

> > > > > > > > without

> > > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > > sound

> > > > > > > > > > > > > reason.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course if you want contextual translation

only,

> > > > then

> > > > > > > > one can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > certainly say that the " Meshadi raashige

swaamshe "

> > > > can

> > > > > > > > always be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > translated as " Falling in Mesha navamsha in

Mesha

> > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > etc. " .

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way " Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge " ,

that you

> > > > > > > > mention, does

> > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > mean varga of both Venus and mars, but of

varga of

> > > > > > Venus OR

> > > > > > > > > > Mars,

> > > > > > > > > > > > due to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the grammar only. varga of two planets can

not fall

> > > > in

> > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > bhava/amsha/rasi whether in rasi or Navamsha

or any

> > > > > > other

> > > > > > > > chart.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Grammatically,what you are saying is also

true.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > But Jyotish defintions play a preceding

role in

> > > > > > choosing

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammatical meaning.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example one meaning of labhe ,Swamshe

etc is

> > > > in

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > 11th

> > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > But if we go by that we will definitely

translate

> > > > > > > > swamshe in

> > > > > > > > > > > > meshadi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashige as ''in Swamsha'',thereby

translating it

> > > > as

> > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > full

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart.This as you too agree,then cannot

pass the

> > > > > > test,of

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > subsequent shlokas.I understand gladly

that you

> > > > too

> > > > > > > > agree that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha and karakamsha are the same.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > So the context decides plural/singular and not

> > > > > > > > necessarily

> > > > > > > > > > > > the ''E''

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as you have rightly mentioned.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > But in essence what i want to say is ''E''

does

> > > > not

> > > > > > > > always

> > > > > > > > > > > > mean ''in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the'' as you have interpreted.Labheshe is an

> > > > > > > > example.Karake

> > > > > > > > > > is an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > example.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus it can very well mean Varga of Shukra and

> > > > Mars-

> > > > > > > > which can

> > > > > > > > > > > > then be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > six vargas or one varga.(Not lordship)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra -(There) In the second from Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga or Vargas of Venus and Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now why should we need two qualifiesrs for

> > > > destination

> > > > > > (1)

> > > > > > > > In

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from karakamsha 2)in the vargas of?)-if we had

> > > > another

> > > > > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > your interpretation is right.That planet will

> > > > answer

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > question -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > who is in the vargas of ?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly - Swamshad dhane Shukrar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Swamshad dhane is already pointing to

destination-

> > > > why

> > > > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > > > need

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > another ''in the'' vargas of.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say in the 2nd from

> > > > > > karakamsha if

> > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mars and venus are present,it fits in

> > > > > > > > grammatically.Moreover

> > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > i had

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentioned rashi lordship without planetary

link

> > > > > > > > > > (placement/amsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > etc)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is too general.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I may be wrong but the " E " by itself

does not

> > > > point

> > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > It

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > word Shadvarga indicating 6 Vargas that

is one

> > > > group

> > > > > > > > > > (though it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > contains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more than one unit) and so " Varge " , the

> > > > singular is

> > > > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " E " means " in " . I would be happy if an

example

> > > > > > > > of " Varge "

> > > > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > plural

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can be given.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not at all think that Vargaka or

Varga is

> > > > > > > > singular and

> > > > > > > > > > > > Vargake

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge is plural, at all. Both the manner of

> > > > using

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > indicates singular. it is no use projecting

> > > > what is

> > > > > > > > clearly

> > > > > > > > > > > > Saptami

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vibhakti and singular as being a plural

word. If

> > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > to be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > used as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dvivachana it may become " VargyoH " or

" VargeSu "

> > > > (for

> > > > > > > > > > > > bahuvachan)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge. Perhaps some Sanskrit scholar on

the list

> > > > > > would

> > > > > > > > like

> > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > comment

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on this.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, much as I would like it to resolve, the

> > > > issue

> > > > > > > > remains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unresolved.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will give you a relevant example to

explain

> > > > how

> > > > > > > > VarGE

> > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > used in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > context of plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna Shad-VargaKE - Is pointing to all

> > > > vargas -

> > > > > > > > > > Plural.You

> > > > > > > > > > > > may

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > note

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that the grammatical ending is with ''E''

> > > > showing

> > > > > > > > plurals

> > > > > > > > > > > > too can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expressed with such an ending.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now from Vrishamsha''Ka'' and Tulamsha

> > > > example we

> > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > conclude

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VargaKA and VarGA can be used for the same

> > > > > > purpose in

> > > > > > > > > > > > Ekavachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > singular form and VargaKE and VarGE can be

> > > > used

> > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > Bahuvachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plural form.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope this may help us in resolving our

> > > > issue.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

-------------

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > > -----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

-----------------

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > > -

> > > > > > > > > > > > -------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

---------------------

> > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > Release

> > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

removed]

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

-------------------------

> > > > > > > > -------

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.0/886 -

Release

> > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeep,

 

How could I think shadvarga of lagna is shadvarga of rashi? Lagna is the

point on the eastern horizon at the time of birth of a jataka.

 

There is no dispute about what is lagnamsha and what is karakamsha at

all. At the same time when reference is to a graha falling in Lagnamsha

it refers to the navamsha rasi (or sector ruled by one of the rasis of a

planet, barring Sun and Chandra if you like it that way) in which the

lagnamsha falls. Now that being so where is the shubha graha supposed to

fall in the shloka I quoted? Same with the Shubh graha in Karakamsha and

needing drishti of shubha graha on it. It is easy to say that these

need to be seen in rasi, but for lack of the reference to rasi, there,

there is no reason to assume that it does not refer to navamsha rasi.

The reference to grahas in " Meshaamshe " , " Vrishabhaamshe " etc are quite

clear, in BPHS.

 

Take care,

Chandrashekhar.

 

 

vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>

> Of course Yes,you are correct.Varga is found for this bindu and in

> the case of planets their degree decides.The rest you have stated is

> also as per definition.My point was made under the impression that

> you have a view that,shadvarga of Lagna is shadvarga of a rashi.If so

> it is not.Shad varga is found for Lagna bindu.

>

> The full Rashi/Kshethra in which Lagna bindu falls becomes its first

> Varga.

>

> The Translation is entiterely correct and no one can contradict.This

> is similar to one planet aspecting shadvargas of lagna.

>

> Lagnamsha is already covered in the shadvargas of lagna.Karakamsha is

> similar too.

>

> Now let us see it on a chart.Karkamasha is in Dhanu.Jupiter is placed

> in Mithuna Rashi.Shubha graha is aspecting Karakamsha Lagna

> (Rashi).Similarly Lagnamsha.

>

> You are already aware of the rules for aspects.

>

> Respect

> Pradeep

>

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > I see your point of view. anyway even within shadvargas we look for

> the

> > degree of a planet falling within a certain span of degrees and not

> one

> > particular bindu.

> >

> > I agree that rashi is a Varga and my question is if one can look at

> > aspects in one Varga why not in other Vargas? I am sure you know

> that

> > personally I use navamsha to find only the strength of grahas, but

> there

> > is no reason to rule out aspects in Navamshas or other charts

> totally.

> > One of the raj yogas mentioned by Parashara talks of aspect of

> shubha

> > grahas on the karakamsha and Lagnamsha which should also be

> tenanted by

> > Shubha grahas, leaving no doubt as to where the aspects are to be

> seen.

> > And for the record the translation to that effect is by an eminent

> > astrologer who was Professor of astrology in Banaras Hindu

> University.

> >

> > Take care,

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > Lagna as a bindu was mentioned for driving home the shadvarga

> > > calculations,if any members were having doubts.For shadvarga

> > > calculation of planets too we need the bindu or degree of a planet

> > > within a rashi, as you are aware.

> > >

> > > We have to look at Rashis.This is so because Rashi (one 30 degree

> > > sector ) is the first varga.As this Varga is synonymous with Bhava

> > > houses are analysed w.r to Rashis.

> > >

> > > Respect

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > If lagna is a bindu a you propose, and nothing more, then how

> can

> > > it

> > > > indicate an entire rasi? Now if this is correct, and technically

> > > it is,

> > > > then by your reckoning there is no need to look at rasis too. Is

> > > that

> > > > what you mean to say?

> > > >

> > > > If shadvargas are not related to the portion falling in the

> lagna

> > > rasis,

> > > > which holds the degree of lagna Madhya, then it appears we must

> ask

> > > the

> > > > sages to redefine Vargas. I doubt they need our advise.

> > > >

> > > > Take care,

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > >

> > > > > There was a purpose.I just wanted to explain it to the

> members if

> > > > > some of them are not sure on what shadvarga of lagna is and

> how it

> > > > > is calculated.

> > > > >

> > > > > As you have said Vargas are divisions of a rashi.But

> shadvargas of

> > > > > Lagna is not the Vargas falling in Lagna.Here lagna is not a

> > > > > rashi,but a bindu.Vargas are found from a degree.The degree

> of a

> > > > > planet or degree of lagna.

> > > > >

> > > > > As you may know we do notneed six charts to dtermine

> shadvargas of

> > > > > lagna.All we need is the degree of lagna and the rashi rising.

> > > > >

> > > > > Let us take an example.Lagna is at 11 degrees in dhanu.

> > > > >

> > > > > Let us find the shadvargas of Lagna with th help of rising

> rashi

> > > and

> > > > > degree.

> > > > >

> > > > > 1st Varga - The Rashi in which Lagna bindu is falling - Dhanu

> > > > > 2nd Varga - The Hora in which Lagna bindu is falling - As 11

> > > degrees

> > > > > falls in the 1st half of dhanu - Surya Hora

> > > > > 3rd Varga - The drekkana in which Lagna bindu is falling - As

> 11

> > > > > degrees falls in the 2nd 1/3rd of dhanu - Drekkana is Mesha.

> > > > > 4th Varga - As 11 degrees falls in the 3rd saptamsha ,Lagna

> > > saptamsha

> > > > > is Kumbha.

> > > > >

> > > > > Similraly - Lagna navamsha is Karka,Lagna Trimshamsha is

> dhanu.

> > > > >

> > > > > Thus the purpose of whole exercise was to say that when we say

> > > > > shadvargas of Lagna or Mars,it does not mean the rashis owned

> by

> > > > > Lagna or Mars.But the Rashis on towhich they are placed,having

> > > > > hora,drekkana etc etc.

> > > > >

> > > > > Vargas of Mars in the 2nd Rashi from karakamsha too is no

> > > differet.

> > > > >

> > > > > There are many meanings,that is why Rashi is called as

> > > > > Kshethra /Riksha /havana etc.But i don't think sage will use

> the

> > > > > saword to represent something belonging to same class.

> > > > >

> > > > > For example sage will not use ''sva'' to mean 2nd as well as

> > > 3rd.Then

> > > > > we cannot interpret.

> > > > >

> > > > > Similarly Rashi and navamsha will not be represented using the

> > > same

> > > > > word.Rashi/Kshethra/Riksha/Bhvana/Lagna etc are synonyms an

> ifthey

> > > > > are used for navamsha then what is the whole purpose behind

> > > defintion.

> > > > >

> > > > > On the other hand sva was used for iems from different

> classes.

> > > > >

> > > > > This wasin mind while making such a statement.I will try my

> best

> > > to

> > > > > polish my style of writing.I accept my limitations in writing.

> > > > >

> > > > > Respect

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I have not understood your question or the intent behind

> that.

> > > The

> > > > > > Vargas are divisions, within a rasi, ruled by different

> grahas.

> > > So

> > > > > if

> > > > > > one wants t look at Vargas falling in lagna the shad Vargas

> will

> > > > > mean

> > > > > > the rasi equivalent occurring at lagna position in the 6

> > > divisional

> > > > > > charts of Rashi, Hora, Dreshkana, Navamsha, Dwaadashamsha

> and

> > > > > > Trimshamsha. Or at least this is what I have learnt.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sages did not use words in vain or context. I agree. But

> that

> > > does

> > > > > not

> > > > > > mean they used the words to mean only one thing always.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I never said that the meaning can be changed to suit our

> > > > > convenience and

> > > > > > I would request you not to attribute such sentiments to me.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > However I do say that word are used in different contexts to

> > > mean

> > > > > > different things, especially in Sanskrit texts of Jyotish. I

> > > have,

> > > > > just

> > > > > > a few minutes back use of " Sva " with different meaning at

> > > different

> > > > > > places by Varaha Mihira to you. I hope you do not also

> attribute

> > > > > the

> > > > > > words that you attributed to me to the venerated Varaha

> Mihira.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar,.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Pls tell me what you mean by shadvargas of lagna.How do

> you

> > > find

> > > > > > > them.Do you go by ownership or placement

> > > > > (Rashi/navamsha/dwadshamsha

> > > > > > > etc).

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > There are shlokas in Varahamihiras text which

> says ,Okarkshe

> > > > > > > Purushamshakae.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Which means in Ojarashi and Oja amsha.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > As per me sages will not use any words out of context.If

> he

> > > wants

> > > > > to

> > > > > > > say amsha he will mention it.He will not use Rashi to

> mean as

> > > > > amsha.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Ojarkshe is Oja Rashi.Similarly Paparkshe is Papa Rashi.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > If you want to say as per our conveninece we can change

> the

> > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > of riksha/rashi/bhavana/bhavas as navamsha then i cannot

> say

> > > > > > > anything.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I can only respect your views.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I will tell you why that happens. You begin with quoting

> > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > then give a sutra from Jaimini as being said by

> Parashara.

> > > > > > > > Interpretation of sutras is not the easiest of the

> things,

> > > more

> > > > > so

> > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > Jaimini's Upadesha sutras. That the sutras use

> KaTaPaYaadi

> > > > > > > encryption

> > > > > > > > makes them even more difficult to interpret. I am sure

> you

> > > have

> > > > > > > noticed

> > > > > > > > this when Sreenadh interpreted the KaTaPaYaadi Varga in

> a

> > > wrong

> > > > > > > fashion.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Then there is your insistence to let Sanskrit grammar

> give

> > > a go

> > > > > by

> > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > that can make interpretation of a shloka or sutra fit

> your

> > > > > > > proposition.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Any of the Shodasha Vargas of a rasi can be referred to

> as

> > > > > Varga,

> > > > > > > but as

> > > > > > > > far as I know in astrology, when one talks of Varga,

> without

> > > > > > > qualifying

> > > > > > > > it, or Amshas that generally refers to navamsha or

> > > > > Dwadashaamsha.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Another reason that we can not agree, or seem to agree,

> is

> > > that

> > > > > > > you are

> > > > > > > > reluctant to call a navamsha by the nomenclature

> navamsha

> > > rasi.

> > > > > > > This

> > > > > > > > makes it difficult to convey what I mean to say in

> English

> > > as

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > the language of the net and which both of us know. Now

> > > since you

> > > > > > > do not

> > > > > > > > want to use the word Mesha navamsha as Mesha is a rashi

> and

> > > by

> > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > logic it can not be a navamsha, it becomes difficult to

> > > convey

> > > > > > > what I

> > > > > > > > understand by the texts.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I will like to draw your attention to the literal

> meaning

> > > of the

> > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > rasi. It means a heap and nothing more. In astrology

> since

> > > it

> > > > > > > > encompasses many stars that make up a nakshatra the

> 1/12th

> > > > > > > division of

> > > > > > > > the zodiac is called a Rasi. Or at least this is my

> > > > > understanding

> > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > reason of using the word rasi for the 1/12th division

> of the

> > > > > > > zodiac.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I do not agree that by Chandra in Guru Varga it is meant

> > > that

> > > > > > > Varga of

> > > > > > > > Chandra is being seen. To me we are talking about is

> whether

> > > > > > > Chandra is

> > > > > > > > falling in the Varga of Guru in which ever rasi he is

> > > occupying.

> > > > > > > So in

> > > > > > > > Navamsha we see whether Chandra is occupying Pisces or

> > > > > Sagittarius

> > > > > > > > navamsha. I also do not agree that there are Vargas of

> > > Chandra

> > > > > or

> > > > > > > of any

> > > > > > > > planet for that matter. The 16 Vargas that Parashara

> talks

> > > about

> > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > that of a Rasi, beginning from the Rashi itself.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > If the Vargas are not owned by different planets, pray

> why

> > > does

> > > > > > > the sage

> > > > > > > > tell us to see occupation of a friend, own etc. Varga to

> > > assess

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > strength of a planet in the Varga concerned?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I have interacted with many astrologers of yesteryears

> (with

> > > > > > > respect to

> > > > > > > > my age group) and have never found them claiming the

> Vargas

> > > to

> > > > > be

> > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > only lagna and planets.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > If you insist that sage Parashara gave the SU. 52.-

> " Tatra

> > > > > > > bhrigwongaraka

> > > > > > > > varge paradarikaha " , perhaps you are referring to some

> > > edition

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > BPHS

> > > > > > > > that I do not have. However I do have that in the

> umpteen

> > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > texts on Jaimini that I do have in my library. And by

> the

> > > way,

> > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > scholars have interpreted that to mean 9th from

> Karakamsha

> > > and

> > > > > not

> > > > > > > the 2nd.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I do not agree that a graha can simultaneously occupy

> the

> > > Varga

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > Venus and Mars, simultaneously, as is being suggested

> > > whether in

> > > > > > > rasi or

> > > > > > > > in any of the Vargas. It could only occupy one or the

> other.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I have seen you arguing in favor of looking at the

> > > Shadvargas of

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > grahas Venus and Mars. I would like you to look at all

> the

> > > six

> > > > > > > charts

> > > > > > > > whose Vargas together are referred as Shadvargas and

> try to

> > > find

> > > > > > > out

> > > > > > > > whether they do indeed contain the 6 Vargas of Venus

> and 6

> > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > Mars. I am sure that you will find them to contain only

> 5

> > > Vargas

> > > > > > > each of

> > > > > > > > the grahas. Once you confirm this by looking at the 6

> Vargas

> > > > > your

> > > > > > > self,

> > > > > > > > tell me how one can look at Shadvargas of Venus or Mars

> as

> > > is

> > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > suggested to be the interpretation of the sutra that

> you are

> > > > > > > referring to.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > You may also be interested to know that Parashara talks

> of

> > > AK

> > > > > > > falling in

> > > > > > > > the Varga of Chandra, Mars or Venus also having the

> roving

> > > eye

> > > > > on

> > > > > > > others

> > > > > > > > wives. So the combination of Venus and Mars being the

> only

> > > one

> > > > > > > giving

> > > > > > > > the roving eye for other's wives, that you are

> advancing as

> > > a

> > > > > > > standalone

> > > > > > > > principle, may not, necessarily, be the way the sage

> looked

> > > at

> > > > > > > their

> > > > > > > > interpretation.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Those were written by me.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I am very dissappointed to see that ,inspite of

> repeating

> > > > > numerus

> > > > > > > > > times,you are unable to get what i am saying.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I am not talking about rashis lorded by shukra or Mars

> > > here.I

> > > > > am

> > > > > > > > > talking about the shadvargas vargas of mars and

> shukra.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Pls tell me what is the meaning of shadvargas or

> simply

> > > Varga

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > lagna.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > It is the rashi in which lagna is placed.The

> navamshaka of

> > > > > > > > > Lagna,Trimshamshaka of Lagna etc.Can we see any

> lordship

> > > as

> > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > say.Lagna does not own any rashi.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Similarly when we say vargas of Venus -It means Rashi

> of

> > > > > > > > > Venus,Hora,navamshaka,drekkana,trimshamshaka etc.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Shadvarga is never the rashi owned by a planet.Then

> Lagna

> > > can

> > > > > > > never

> > > > > > > > > have shadvarga.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say,Chandra in Guru Varga - We

> > > are not

> > > > > > > seeing

> > > > > > > > > the shadvarga of Guru,but that of chandra.Is chandra

> > > placed in

> > > > > > > Guru

> > > > > > > > > Rashi?Is Chandra navamshaka in Guru Rashi.Is Chandra

> > > > > > > Trimshamshaka in

> > > > > > > > > Guru Rashi etc is what we check.If so chandras vargas

> > > fall in

> > > > > > > guru

> > > > > > > > > rashis or we say chandra is in guruvargas.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > For the same reason schoplars of yesteryears always

> say

> > > Vargas

> > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > for our natal Lagna and Planets.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > On the other hand you are taking them as owned by a

> > > > > planet.Every

> > > > > > > > > shadvarga that derive is like that.You may check this

> with

> > > > > shri

> > > > > > > > > Narasimha,how he is deriving it for his software.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > For the same reason Bhrigu and Angara can have Varga

> > > together

> > > > > in

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > Rashi which is 2nd from Karakamsha.Sage clearly talks

> > > about

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > vargas from both.Moreover the next shloka is talking

> about

> > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > Venus together or aspecting the 2nd from karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we go by your explanation,we

> have to

> > > opt

> > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > just one among shukra or Mars which is not

> proper.Their

> > > Joint

> > > > > > > > > influence creates sexual drive.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I request you to kindly read this with care.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Rspect

> > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > The below remarks are not from my mail at all. I do

> not

> > > know

> > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > think I would write that. I am sure you know that

> this

> > > is

> > > > > not

> > > > > > > my

> > > > > > > > > style

> > > > > > > > > > of writing at all.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > " >From my experience -Mars + Venus creates certin

> > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why are you going

> for

> > > the

> > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > owned by

> > > > > > > > > > just one of them and that too without a planetary

> link

> > > is

> > > > > > > really

> > > > > > > > > > worrying me.Shri Rath has translated so,i agree.But

> i

> > > have

> > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will definitely correct

> > > this

> > > > > for

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > benfit

> > > > > > > > > > of jyotish community. "

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > As to why I said they could not be having their

> Vargas

> > > > > > > together in

> > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > rasi or Bhava does not need any deeper explanation.

> If

> > > you

> > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > looking

> > > > > > > > > > at the 2nd from Karakamsha in the rasi chart, as you

> > > think

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > right, you

> > > > > > > > > > could not have both Mesha and Vrishabha or Tula and

> > > > > Vrishchika

> > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > 2nd from the Karakamsha, is that not so? Similarly

> if in

> > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > chart

> > > > > > > > > > the 2nd from Karakamsha is to be seen, the 2nd

> could be

> > > not

> > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > navamshas.

> > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I though you meant so.Because in subsequent lines

> we

> > > can

> > > > > see

> > > > > > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > and Karakamsha being used for the same

> purpose.But if

> > > you

> > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > there are other places where swamsha is used for

> say

> > > > > > > > > Lagnamsha ,then

> > > > > > > > > > > i can trust you if you can point me to that. This

> > > should

> > > > > not

> > > > > > > be a

> > > > > > > > > > > problem and in no way it will affect us.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars can ofcourse have their Vargas in a

> > > single

> > > > > > > rashi or

> > > > > > > > > > > Bhava.Venus can have navamsha there,Mars can have

> > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > there,Venus can have Trimshamsha there,Mars can

> have

> > > > > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > there,they both can have drekkana there etc etc.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Thus sage is talking about Bhrigu and Angara both

> (as

> > > you

> > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > identified gramattically) having varga there and

> it is

> > > > > very

> > > > > > > much

> > > > > > > > > > > possible.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > If you note the next line -Sage is talking about

> both

> > > > > Venus

> > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > joining or aspecting the 2nd from Karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >From my experience -Mars + Venus creates certin

> > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why are you going

> for

> > > the

> > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > owned by just one of them and that too without a

> > > planetary

> > > > > > > link is

> > > > > > > > > > > really worrying me.Shri Rath has translated so,i

> > > > > agree.But i

> > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will definitely

> correct

> > > this

> > > > > > > for the

> > > > > > > > > > > benfit of jyotish community.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I am surprised as to why you say so.That they

> cannot

> > > have

> > > > > > > > > together.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > Pardeep

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I have never said that I do not think that

> Swamsha

> > > and

> > > > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > different where the context demands so. At the

> same

> > > > > time I

> > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > grammar can be put to rest to in the name of

> > > context,

> > > > > > > without

> > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > sound

> > > > > > > > > > > > reason.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Of course if you want contextual translation

> only,

> > > then

> > > > > > > one can

> > > > > > > > > > > > certainly say that the " Meshadi raashige

> swaamshe "

> > > can

> > > > > > > always be

> > > > > > > > > > > > translated as " Falling in Mesha navamsha in

> Mesha

> > > rasi

> > > > > > > etc. " .

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > By the way " Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge " , that

> you

> > > > > > > mention, does

> > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > mean varga of both Venus and mars, but of varga

> of

> > > > > Venus OR

> > > > > > > > > Mars,

> > > > > > > > > > > due to

> > > > > > > > > > > > the grammar only. varga of two planets can not

> fall

> > > in

> > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > bhava/amsha/rasi whether in rasi or Navamsha or

> any

> > > > > other

> > > > > > > chart.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Grammatically,what you are saying is also

> true.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > But Jyotish defintions play a preceding role

> in

> > > > > choosing

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > grammatical meaning.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > For example one meaning of labhe ,Swamshe etc

> is

> > > in

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > 11th

> > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > But if we go by that we will definitely

> translate

> > > > > > > swamshe in

> > > > > > > > > > > meshadi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > rashige as ''in Swamsha'',thereby translating

> it

> > > as

> > > > > one

> > > > > > > full

> > > > > > > > > > > > > chart.This as you too agree,then cannot pass

> the

> > > > > test,of

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > subsequent shlokas.I understand gladly that

> you

> > > too

> > > > > > > agree that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha and karakamsha are the same.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > So the context decides plural/singular and not

> > > > > > > necessarily

> > > > > > > > > > > the ''E''

> > > > > > > > > > > > > as you have rightly mentioned.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > But in essence what i want to say is ''E''

> does

> > > not

> > > > > > > always

> > > > > > > > > > > mean ''in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the'' as you have interpreted.Labheshe is an

> > > > > > > example.Karake

> > > > > > > > > is an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > example.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus it can very well mean Varga of Shukra and

> > > Mars-

> > > > > > > which can

> > > > > > > > > > > then be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > six vargas or one varga.(Not lordship)

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge -

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra -(There) In the second from Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga or Vargas of Venus and Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Now why should we need two qualifiesrs for

> > > destination

> > > > > (1)

> > > > > > > In

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > > > > > > > from karakamsha 2)in the vargas of?)-if we had

> > > another

> > > > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > your interpretation is right.That planet will

> > > answer

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > question -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > who is in the vargas of ?

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly - Swamshad dhane Shukrar

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Swamshad dhane is already pointing to

> destination-

> > > why

> > > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > > need

> > > > > > > > > > > > > another ''in the'' vargas of.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say in the 2nd from

> > > > > karakamsha if

> > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > mars and venus are present,it fits in

> > > > > > > grammatically.Moreover

> > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > i had

> > > > > > > > > > > > > mentioned rashi lordship without planetary

> link

> > > > > > > > > (placement/amsha

> > > > > > > > > > > etc)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > is too general.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I may be wrong but the " E " by itself does

> not

> > > point

> > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > It

> > > > > > > > > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > word Shadvarga indicating 6 Vargas that is

> one

> > > group

> > > > > > > > > (though it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > contains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > more than one unit) and so " Varge " , the

> > > singular is

> > > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > " E " means " in " . I would be happy if an

> example

> > > > > > > of " Varge "

> > > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > > > > plural

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can be given.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not at all think that Vargaka or Varga

> is

> > > > > > > singular and

> > > > > > > > > > > Vargake

> > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge is plural, at all. Both the manner of

> > > using

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > indicates singular. it is no use projecting

> > > what is

> > > > > > > clearly

> > > > > > > > > > > Saptami

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > vibhakti and singular as being a plural

> word. If

> > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > to be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > used as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > dvivachana it may become " VargyoH "

> or " VargeSu "

> > > (for

> > > > > > > > > > > bahuvachan)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge. Perhaps some Sanskrit scholar on the

> list

> > > > > would

> > > > > > > like

> > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > comment

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on this.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, much as I would like it to resolve, the

> > > issue

> > > > > > > remains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > unresolved.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will give you a relevant example to

> explain

> > > how

> > > > > > > VarGE

> > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > used in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > context of plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna Shad-VargaKE - Is pointing to all

> > > vargas -

> > > > > > > > > Plural.You

> > > > > > > > > > > may

> > > > > > > > > > > > > note

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that the grammatical ending is with ''E''

> > > showing

> > > > > > > plurals

> > > > > > > > > > > too can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expressed with such an ending.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now from Vrishamsha''Ka'' and Tulamsha

> > > example we

> > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > conclude

> > > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VargaKA and VarGA can be used for the same

> > > > > purpose in

> > > > > > > > > > > Ekavachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > singular form and VargaKE and VarGE can be

> > > used

> > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > Bahuvachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plural form.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope this may help us in resolving our

> > > issue.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > ---

> > > > > > > -----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > ---

> > > > > > > -

> > > > > > > > > > > -------

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > -----------------

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.0/886 -

> > > Release

> > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > ---------------------

> ----

> > > > > > > -------

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.0/886 -

> Release

> > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandrashekhar ji

 

Meshamshe, Vrishamshe Transit results can be seen from Mesha and

Vrishabha rashis.Thus you are aware of what i am saying.Moreover we

have seen paparkshe.we have seen meshadi rashige swamshe.we have seen

that bhrigwonkaraka varge ,as per your understanding cannot satisfy

both mars and venus.The very next shloka is talking about mars and

venus yuti or aspecting.

 

Now we can forget all these as you are not williing to accept

rashi,riksha etc as valid reasoning.

 

We have seen Lagna shadvargake shloka with aspectual grades,proving

that they ae not rashi drishtis.Couple of days back and many times in

the past,i have heard from you that you don't support aspects in

Vargas.

 

If you still have the sam views,then to understand shadvargake

shloka,we have to see planets aspecting lagna in ''six charts''.As

lagna can fall in any rashi,you have to accept aspects fully in all

Varga charts.

 

This is relevant to our discussion as lagnamsha is also part of

shadvargas of lagna.

 

As you are aware ,the BPHS translator too has expressed his concern.

 

Regds

Pradeep

 

 

 

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> How could I think shadvarga of lagna is shadvarga of rashi? Lagna

is the

> point on the eastern horizon at the time of birth of a jataka.

>

> There is no dispute about what is lagnamsha and what is karakamsha

at

> all. At the same time when reference is to a graha falling in

Lagnamsha

> it refers to the navamsha rasi (or sector ruled by one of the rasis

of a

> planet, barring Sun and Chandra if you like it that way) in which

the

> lagnamsha falls. Now that being so where is the shubha graha

supposed to

> fall in the shloka I quoted? Same with the Shubh graha in

Karakamsha and

> needing drishti of shubha graha on it. It is easy to say that

these

> need to be seen in rasi, but for lack of the reference to rasi,

there,

> there is no reason to assume that it does not refer to navamsha

rasi.

> The reference to grahas in " Meshaamshe " , " Vrishabhaamshe " etc are

quite

> clear, in BPHS.

>

> Take care,

> Chandrashekhar.

>

>

> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >

> > Of course Yes,you are correct.Varga is found for this bindu and in

> > the case of planets their degree decides.The rest you have stated

is

> > also as per definition.My point was made under the impression that

> > you have a view that,shadvarga of Lagna is shadvarga of a

rashi.If so

> > it is not.Shad varga is found for Lagna bindu.

> >

> > The full Rashi/Kshethra in which Lagna bindu falls becomes its

first

> > Varga.

> >

> > The Translation is entiterely correct and no one can

contradict.This

> > is similar to one planet aspecting shadvargas of lagna.

> >

> > Lagnamsha is already covered in the shadvargas of

lagna.Karakamsha is

> > similar too.

> >

> > Now let us see it on a chart.Karkamasha is in Dhanu.Jupiter is

placed

> > in Mithuna Rashi.Shubha graha is aspecting Karakamsha Lagna

> > (Rashi).Similarly Lagnamsha.

> >

> > You are already aware of the rules for aspects.

> >

> > Respect

> > Pradeep

> >

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > I see your point of view. anyway even within shadvargas we look

for

> > the

> > > degree of a planet falling within a certain span of degrees and

not

> > one

> > > particular bindu.

> > >

> > > I agree that rashi is a Varga and my question is if one can

look at

> > > aspects in one Varga why not in other Vargas? I am sure you know

> > that

> > > personally I use navamsha to find only the strength of grahas,

but

> > there

> > > is no reason to rule out aspects in Navamshas or other charts

> > totally.

> > > One of the raj yogas mentioned by Parashara talks of aspect of

> > shubha

> > > grahas on the karakamsha and Lagnamsha which should also be

> > tenanted by

> > > Shubha grahas, leaving no doubt as to where the aspects are to

be

> > seen.

> > > And for the record the translation to that effect is by an

eminent

> > > astrologer who was Professor of astrology in Banaras Hindu

> > University.

> > >

> > > Take care,

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > >

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > >

> > > > Lagna as a bindu was mentioned for driving home the shadvarga

> > > > calculations,if any members were having doubts.For shadvarga

> > > > calculation of planets too we need the bindu or degree of a

planet

> > > > within a rashi, as you are aware.

> > > >

> > > > We have to look at Rashis.This is so because Rashi (one 30

degree

> > > > sector ) is the first varga.As this Varga is synonymous with

Bhava

> > > > houses are analysed w.r to Rashis.

> > > >

> > > > Respect

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > If lagna is a bindu a you propose, and nothing more, then

how

> > can

> > > > it

> > > > > indicate an entire rasi? Now if this is correct, and

technically

> > > > it is,

> > > > > then by your reckoning there is no need to look at rasis

too. Is

> > > > that

> > > > > what you mean to say?

> > > > >

> > > > > If shadvargas are not related to the portion falling in the

> > lagna

> > > > rasis,

> > > > > which holds the degree of lagna Madhya, then it appears we

must

> > ask

> > > > the

> > > > > sages to redefine Vargas. I doubt they need our advise.

> > > > >

> > > > > Take care,

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > There was a purpose.I just wanted to explain it to the

> > members if

> > > > > > some of them are not sure on what shadvarga of lagna is

and

> > how it

> > > > > > is calculated.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As you have said Vargas are divisions of a rashi.But

> > shadvargas of

> > > > > > Lagna is not the Vargas falling in Lagna.Here lagna is

not a

> > > > > > rashi,but a bindu.Vargas are found from a degree.The

degree

> > of a

> > > > > > planet or degree of lagna.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As you may know we do notneed six charts to dtermine

> > shadvargas of

> > > > > > lagna.All we need is the degree of lagna and the rashi

rising.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Let us take an example.Lagna is at 11 degrees in dhanu.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Let us find the shadvargas of Lagna with th help of rising

> > rashi

> > > > and

> > > > > > degree.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 1st Varga - The Rashi in which Lagna bindu is falling -

Dhanu

> > > > > > 2nd Varga - The Hora in which Lagna bindu is falling - As

11

> > > > degrees

> > > > > > falls in the 1st half of dhanu - Surya Hora

> > > > > > 3rd Varga - The drekkana in which Lagna bindu is falling -

As

> > 11

> > > > > > degrees falls in the 2nd 1/3rd of dhanu - Drekkana is

Mesha.

> > > > > > 4th Varga - As 11 degrees falls in the 3rd

saptamsha ,Lagna

> > > > saptamsha

> > > > > > is Kumbha.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Similraly - Lagna navamsha is Karka,Lagna Trimshamsha is

> > dhanu.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thus the purpose of whole exercise was to say that when

we say

> > > > > > shadvargas of Lagna or Mars,it does not mean the rashis

owned

> > by

> > > > > > Lagna or Mars.But the Rashis on towhich they are

placed,having

> > > > > > hora,drekkana etc etc.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Vargas of Mars in the 2nd Rashi from karakamsha too is no

> > > > differet.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > There are many meanings,that is why Rashi is called as

> > > > > > Kshethra /Riksha /havana etc.But i don't think sage will

use

> > the

> > > > > > saword to represent something belonging to same class.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > For example sage will not use ''sva'' to mean 2nd as well

as

> > > > 3rd.Then

> > > > > > we cannot interpret.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Similarly Rashi and navamsha will not be represented

using the

> > > > same

> > > > > > word.Rashi/Kshethra/Riksha/Bhvana/Lagna etc are synonyms

an

> > ifthey

> > > > > > are used for navamsha then what is the whole purpose

behind

> > > > defintion.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > On the other hand sva was used for iems from different

> > classes.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > This wasin mind while making such a statement.I will try

my

> > best

> > > > to

> > > > > > polish my style of writing.I accept my limitations in

writing.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I have not understood your question or the intent behind

> > that.

> > > > The

> > > > > > > Vargas are divisions, within a rasi, ruled by different

> > grahas.

> > > > So

> > > > > > if

> > > > > > > one wants t look at Vargas falling in lagna the shad

Vargas

> > will

> > > > > > mean

> > > > > > > the rasi equivalent occurring at lagna position in the 6

> > > > divisional

> > > > > > > charts of Rashi, Hora, Dreshkana, Navamsha,

Dwaadashamsha

> > and

> > > > > > > Trimshamsha. Or at least this is what I have learnt.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Sages did not use words in vain or context. I agree. But

> > that

> > > > does

> > > > > > not

> > > > > > > mean they used the words to mean only one thing always.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I never said that the meaning can be changed to suit our

> > > > > > convenience and

> > > > > > > I would request you not to attribute such sentiments to

me.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > However I do say that word are used in different

contexts to

> > > > mean

> > > > > > > different things, especially in Sanskrit texts of

Jyotish. I

> > > > have,

> > > > > > just

> > > > > > > a few minutes back use of " Sva " with different meaning

at

> > > > different

> > > > > > > places by Varaha Mihira to you. I hope you do not also

> > attribute

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > words that you attributed to me to the venerated Varaha

> > Mihira.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar,.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Pls tell me what you mean by shadvargas of lagna.How

do

> > you

> > > > find

> > > > > > > > them.Do you go by ownership or placement

> > > > > > (Rashi/navamsha/dwadshamsha

> > > > > > > > etc).

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > There are shlokas in Varahamihiras text which

> > says ,Okarkshe

> > > > > > > > Purushamshakae.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Which means in Ojarashi and Oja amsha.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > As per me sages will not use any words out of

context.If

> > he

> > > > wants

> > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > say amsha he will mention it.He will not use Rashi to

> > mean as

> > > > > > amsha.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Ojarkshe is Oja Rashi.Similarly Paparkshe is Papa

Rashi.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > If you want to say as per our conveninece we can

change

> > the

> > > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > > of riksha/rashi/bhavana/bhavas as navamsha then i

cannot

> > say

> > > > > > > > anything.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I can only respect your views.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>,

Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I will tell you why that happens. You begin with

quoting

> > > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > then give a sutra from Jaimini as being said by

> > Parashara.

> > > > > > > > > Interpretation of sutras is not the easiest of the

> > things,

> > > > more

> > > > > > so

> > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > Jaimini's Upadesha sutras. That the sutras use

> > KaTaPaYaadi

> > > > > > > > encryption

> > > > > > > > > makes them even more difficult to interpret. I am

sure

> > you

> > > > have

> > > > > > > > noticed

> > > > > > > > > this when Sreenadh interpreted the KaTaPaYaadi

Varga in

> > a

> > > > wrong

> > > > > > > > fashion.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Then there is your insistence to let Sanskrit

grammar

> > give

> > > > a go

> > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > that can make interpretation of a shloka or sutra

fit

> > your

> > > > > > > > proposition.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Any of the Shodasha Vargas of a rasi can be

referred to

> > as

> > > > > > Varga,

> > > > > > > > but as

> > > > > > > > > far as I know in astrology, when one talks of Varga,

> > without

> > > > > > > > qualifying

> > > > > > > > > it, or Amshas that generally refers to navamsha or

> > > > > > Dwadashaamsha.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Another reason that we can not agree, or seem to

agree,

> > is

> > > > that

> > > > > > > > you are

> > > > > > > > > reluctant to call a navamsha by the nomenclature

> > navamsha

> > > > rasi.

> > > > > > > > This

> > > > > > > > > makes it difficult to convey what I mean to say in

> > English

> > > > as

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > the language of the net and which both of us know.

Now

> > > > since you

> > > > > > > > do not

> > > > > > > > > want to use the word Mesha navamsha as Mesha is a

rashi

> > and

> > > > by

> > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > logic it can not be a navamsha, it becomes

difficult to

> > > > convey

> > > > > > > > what I

> > > > > > > > > understand by the texts.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I will like to draw your attention to the literal

> > meaning

> > > > of the

> > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > rasi. It means a heap and nothing more. In astrology

> > since

> > > > it

> > > > > > > > > encompasses many stars that make up a nakshatra the

> > 1/12th

> > > > > > > > division of

> > > > > > > > > the zodiac is called a Rasi. Or at least this is my

> > > > > > understanding

> > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > reason of using the word rasi for the 1/12th

division

> > of the

> > > > > > > > zodiac.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I do not agree that by Chandra in Guru Varga it is

meant

> > > > that

> > > > > > > > Varga of

> > > > > > > > > Chandra is being seen. To me we are talking about is

> > whether

> > > > > > > > Chandra is

> > > > > > > > > falling in the Varga of Guru in which ever rasi he

is

> > > > occupying.

> > > > > > > > So in

> > > > > > > > > Navamsha we see whether Chandra is occupying Pisces

or

> > > > > > Sagittarius

> > > > > > > > > navamsha. I also do not agree that there are Vargas

of

> > > > Chandra

> > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > of any

> > > > > > > > > planet for that matter. The 16 Vargas that Parashara

> > talks

> > > > about

> > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > that of a Rasi, beginning from the Rashi itself.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > If the Vargas are not owned by different planets,

pray

> > why

> > > > does

> > > > > > > > the sage

> > > > > > > > > tell us to see occupation of a friend, own etc.

Varga to

> > > > assess

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > strength of a planet in the Varga concerned?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I have interacted with many astrologers of

yesteryears

> > (with

> > > > > > > > respect to

> > > > > > > > > my age group) and have never found them claiming the

> > Vargas

> > > > to

> > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > only lagna and planets.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > If you insist that sage Parashara gave the SU. 52.-

> > " Tatra

> > > > > > > > bhrigwongaraka

> > > > > > > > > varge paradarikaha " , perhaps you are referring to

some

> > > > edition

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > BPHS

> > > > > > > > > that I do not have. However I do have that in the

> > umpteen

> > > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > texts on Jaimini that I do have in my library. And

by

> > the

> > > > way,

> > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > scholars have interpreted that to mean 9th from

> > Karakamsha

> > > > and

> > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > the 2nd.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I do not agree that a graha can simultaneously

occupy

> > the

> > > > Varga

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars, simultaneously, as is being

suggested

> > > > whether in

> > > > > > > > rasi or

> > > > > > > > > in any of the Vargas. It could only occupy one or

the

> > other.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I have seen you arguing in favor of looking at the

> > > > Shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > grahas Venus and Mars. I would like you to look at

all

> > the

> > > > six

> > > > > > > > charts

> > > > > > > > > whose Vargas together are referred as Shadvargas and

> > try to

> > > > find

> > > > > > > > out

> > > > > > > > > whether they do indeed contain the 6 Vargas of Venus

> > and 6

> > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > Mars. I am sure that you will find them to contain

only

> > 5

> > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > each of

> > > > > > > > > the grahas. Once you confirm this by looking at the

6

> > Vargas

> > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > self,

> > > > > > > > > tell me how one can look at Shadvargas of Venus or

Mars

> > as

> > > > is

> > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > suggested to be the interpretation of the sutra that

> > you are

> > > > > > > > referring to.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > You may also be interested to know that Parashara

talks

> > of

> > > > AK

> > > > > > > > falling in

> > > > > > > > > the Varga of Chandra, Mars or Venus also having the

> > roving

> > > > eye

> > > > > > on

> > > > > > > > others

> > > > > > > > > wives. So the combination of Venus and Mars being

the

> > only

> > > > one

> > > > > > > > giving

> > > > > > > > > the roving eye for other's wives, that you are

> > advancing as

> > > > a

> > > > > > > > standalone

> > > > > > > > > principle, may not, necessarily, be the way the sage

> > looked

> > > > at

> > > > > > > > their

> > > > > > > > > interpretation.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Those were written by me.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I am very dissappointed to see that ,inspite of

> > repeating

> > > > > > numerus

> > > > > > > > > > times,you are unable to get what i am saying.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I am not talking about rashis lorded by shukra or

Mars

> > > > here.I

> > > > > > am

> > > > > > > > > > talking about the shadvargas vargas of mars and

> > shukra.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Pls tell me what is the meaning of shadvargas or

> > simply

> > > > Varga

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > lagna.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > It is the rashi in which lagna is placed.The

> > navamshaka of

> > > > > > > > > > Lagna,Trimshamshaka of Lagna etc.Can we see any

> > lordship

> > > > as

> > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > say.Lagna does not own any rashi.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Similarly when we say vargas of Venus -It means

Rashi

> > of

> > > > > > > > > > Venus,Hora,navamshaka,drekkana,trimshamshaka etc.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Shadvarga is never the rashi owned by a

planet.Then

> > Lagna

> > > > can

> > > > > > > > never

> > > > > > > > > > have shadvarga.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say,Chandra in Guru

Varga - We

> > > > are not

> > > > > > > > seeing

> > > > > > > > > > the shadvarga of Guru,but that of chandra.Is

chandra

> > > > placed in

> > > > > > > > Guru

> > > > > > > > > > Rashi?Is Chandra navamshaka in Guru Rashi.Is

Chandra

> > > > > > > > Trimshamshaka in

> > > > > > > > > > Guru Rashi etc is what we check.If so chandras

vargas

> > > > fall in

> > > > > > > > guru

> > > > > > > > > > rashis or we say chandra is in guruvargas.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > For the same reason schoplars of yesteryears

always

> > say

> > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > for our natal Lagna and Planets.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > On the other hand you are taking them as owned by

a

> > > > > > planet.Every

> > > > > > > > > > shadvarga that derive is like that.You may check

this

> > with

> > > > > > shri

> > > > > > > > > > Narasimha,how he is deriving it for his software.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > For the same reason Bhrigu and Angara can have

Varga

> > > > together

> > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > Rashi which is 2nd from Karakamsha.Sage clearly

talks

> > > > about

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > vargas from both.Moreover the next shloka is

talking

> > about

> > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > Venus together or aspecting the 2nd from

karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we go by your explanation,we

> > have to

> > > > opt

> > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > just one among shukra or Mars which is not

> > proper.Their

> > > > Joint

> > > > > > > > > > influence creates sexual drive.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I request you to kindly read this with care.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Rspect

> > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > The below remarks are not from my mail at all.

I do

> > not

> > > > know

> > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > think I would write that. I am sure you know

that

> > this

> > > > is

> > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > my

> > > > > > > > > > style

> > > > > > > > > > > of writing at all.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > " >From my experience -Mars + Venus creates

certin

> > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why are you

going

> > for

> > > > the

> > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > owned by

> > > > > > > > > > > just one of them and that too without a

planetary

> > link

> > > > is

> > > > > > > > really

> > > > > > > > > > > worrying me.Shri Rath has translated so,i

agree.But

> > i

> > > > have

> > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will definitely

correct

> > > > this

> > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > benfit

> > > > > > > > > > > of jyotish community. "

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > As to why I said they could not be having their

> > Vargas

> > > > > > > > together in

> > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > rasi or Bhava does not need any deeper

explanation.

> > If

> > > > you

> > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > looking

> > > > > > > > > > > at the 2nd from Karakamsha in the rasi chart,

as you

> > > > think

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > right, you

> > > > > > > > > > > could not have both Mesha and Vrishabha or Tula

and

> > > > > > Vrishchika

> > > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > 2nd from the Karakamsha, is that not so?

Similarly

> > if in

> > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > chart

> > > > > > > > > > > the 2nd from Karakamsha is to be seen, the 2nd

> > could be

> > > > not

> > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > navamshas.

> > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I though you meant so.Because in subsequent

lines

> > we

> > > > can

> > > > > > see

> > > > > > > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > and Karakamsha being used for the same

> > purpose.But if

> > > > you

> > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > there are other places where swamsha is used

for

> > say

> > > > > > > > > > Lagnamsha ,then

> > > > > > > > > > > > i can trust you if you can point me to that.

This

> > > > should

> > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > be a

> > > > > > > > > > > > problem and in no way it will affect us.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars can ofcourse have their Vargas

in a

> > > > single

> > > > > > > > rashi or

> > > > > > > > > > > > Bhava.Venus can have navamsha there,Mars can

have

> > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > there,Venus can have Trimshamsha there,Mars

can

> > have

> > > > > > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > there,they both can have drekkana there etc

etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Thus sage is talking about Bhrigu and Angara

both

> > (as

> > > > you

> > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > identified gramattically) having varga there

and

> > it is

> > > > > > very

> > > > > > > > much

> > > > > > > > > > > > possible.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > If you note the next line -Sage is talking

about

> > both

> > > > > > Venus

> > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > joining or aspecting the 2nd from Karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >From my experience -Mars + Venus creates

certin

> > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why are you

going

> > for

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > owned by just one of them and that too

without a

> > > > planetary

> > > > > > > > link is

> > > > > > > > > > > > really worrying me.Shri Rath has translated

so,i

> > > > > > agree.But i

> > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will definitely

> > correct

> > > > this

> > > > > > > > for the

> > > > > > > > > > > > benfit of jyotish community.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I am surprised as to why you say so.That they

> > cannot

> > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > together.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > Pardeep

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I have never said that I do not think that

> > Swamsha

> > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > different where the context demands so. At

the

> > same

> > > > > > time I

> > > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > grammar can be put to rest to in the name of

> > > > context,

> > > > > > > > without

> > > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > > sound

> > > > > > > > > > > > > reason.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course if you want contextual translation

> > only,

> > > > then

> > > > > > > > one can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > certainly say that the " Meshadi raashige

> > swaamshe "

> > > > can

> > > > > > > > always be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > translated as " Falling in Mesha navamsha in

> > Mesha

> > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > etc. " .

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way " Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge " ,

that

> > you

> > > > > > > > mention, does

> > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > mean varga of both Venus and mars, but of

varga

> > of

> > > > > > Venus OR

> > > > > > > > > > Mars,

> > > > > > > > > > > > due to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the grammar only. varga of two planets can

not

> > fall

> > > > in

> > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > bhava/amsha/rasi whether in rasi or

Navamsha or

> > any

> > > > > > other

> > > > > > > > chart.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Grammatically,what you are saying is also

> > true.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > But Jyotish defintions play a preceding

role

> > in

> > > > > > choosing

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammatical meaning.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example one meaning of labhe ,Swamshe

etc

> > is

> > > > in

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > 11th

> > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > But if we go by that we will definitely

> > translate

> > > > > > > > swamshe in

> > > > > > > > > > > > meshadi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashige as ''in Swamsha'',thereby

translating

> > it

> > > > as

> > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > full

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart.This as you too agree,then cannot

pass

> > the

> > > > > > test,of

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > subsequent shlokas.I understand gladly

that

> > you

> > > > too

> > > > > > > > agree that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha and karakamsha are the same.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > So the context decides plural/singular

and not

> > > > > > > > necessarily

> > > > > > > > > > > > the ''E''

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as you have rightly mentioned.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > But in essence what i want to say is ''E''

> > does

> > > > not

> > > > > > > > always

> > > > > > > > > > > > mean ''in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the'' as you have interpreted.Labheshe is

an

> > > > > > > > example.Karake

> > > > > > > > > > is an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > example.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus it can very well mean Varga of

Shukra and

> > > > Mars-

> > > > > > > > which can

> > > > > > > > > > > > then be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > six vargas or one varga.(Not lordship)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra -(There) In the second from

Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga or Vargas of Venus and Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now why should we need two qualifiesrs for

> > > > destination

> > > > > > (1)

> > > > > > > > In

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from karakamsha 2)in the vargas of?)-if

we had

> > > > another

> > > > > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > your interpretation is right.That planet

will

> > > > answer

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > question -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > who is in the vargas of ?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly - Swamshad dhane Shukrar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Swamshad dhane is already pointing to

> > destination-

> > > > why

> > > > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > > > need

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > another ''in the'' vargas of.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say in the 2nd

from

> > > > > > karakamsha if

> > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mars and venus are present,it fits in

> > > > > > > > grammatically.Moreover

> > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > i had

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentioned rashi lordship without planetary

> > link

> > > > > > > > > > (placement/amsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > etc)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is too general.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I may be wrong but the " E " by itself

does

> > not

> > > > point

> > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > It

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > word Shadvarga indicating 6 Vargas that

is

> > one

> > > > group

> > > > > > > > > > (though it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > contains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more than one unit) and so " Varge " , the

> > > > singular is

> > > > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " E " means " in " . I would be happy if an

> > example

> > > > > > > > of " Varge "

> > > > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > plural

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can be given.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not at all think that Vargaka or

Varga

> > is

> > > > > > > > singular and

> > > > > > > > > > > > Vargake

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge is plural, at all. Both the

manner of

> > > > using

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > indicates singular. it is no use

projecting

> > > > what is

> > > > > > > > clearly

> > > > > > > > > > > > Saptami

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vibhakti and singular as being a plural

> > word. If

> > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > to be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > used as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dvivachana it may become " VargyoH "

> > or " VargeSu "

> > > > (for

> > > > > > > > > > > > bahuvachan)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge. Perhaps some Sanskrit scholar on

the

> > list

> > > > > > would

> > > > > > > > like

> > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > comment

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on this.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, much as I would like it to resolve,

the

> > > > issue

> > > > > > > > remains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unresolved.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will give you a relevant example to

> > explain

> > > > how

> > > > > > > > VarGE

> > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > used in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > context of plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna Shad-VargaKE - Is pointing to

all

> > > > vargas -

> > > > > > > > > > Plural.You

> > > > > > > > > > > > may

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > note

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that the grammatical ending is

with ''E''

> > > > showing

> > > > > > > > plurals

> > > > > > > > > > > > too can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expressed with such an ending.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now from Vrishamsha''Ka'' and Tulamsha

> > > > example we

> > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > conclude

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VargaKA and VarGA can be used for the

same

> > > > > > purpose in

> > > > > > > > > > > > Ekavachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > singular form and VargaKE and VarGE

can be

> > > > used

> > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > Bahuvachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plural form.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope this may help us in resolving

our

> > > > issue.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----

----

> > ----

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > > -----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have

been

> > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------

----

> > ----

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > > -

> > > > > > > > > > > > -------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > -------------

----

> > ----

> > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

269.10.0/886 -

> > > > Release

> > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > -----------------

----

> > ----

> > > > > > > > -------

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.0/886 -

> > Release

> > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

removed]

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > ---------------------

----

> > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.0/886 -

Release

> > > > Date:

> > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeep,

 

Transits are to be seen no doubt from the rasis synonymous to the

navamsha rasis, but when it is sphuta it is of the navamshesha and not

the rasis. There is a difference between the two.

 

I have already said I do not consider aspects in D-charts, unless

specifically mentioned in some yogas, and also that barring navamsha

charts, in other varga charts I look at rashi aspects. That does not

mean I should close my eyes to what is written in other respected texts.

That only means I look at charts from a different angle.

 

There is nothing in the lagna shadvargake shloka to indicate graded

aspects and so it does not rule out rashi drishti at all. Ans since you

have quoted both Parashara and Jaimini you should know that rashi

drishtis are valid in Parashara too and exclusively so in Jaimini.

 

Your translation and mine of the shlokas differ and that is why there is

no agreement. If you expect Dashaadhyaayi to give divisional charts and

their interpretations, that is not possible as Varaha Mihira on whose

work it is only a commentary does not speak of it and it is commentary

on only 10 of the 18 adhayaayas of Brihat jataka. If you read Brihat

jataka carefully, you will see reference o aspects in Trimshamsha there.

Since you have many times claimed superiority of Dashaadhyaayi over many

of the more ancient and respected classics, I find it strange as to why

you do not want to accept what is said in the original text on which

Dashaadhyaayi is only a commentary and that too on 10 adhyaayas as the

name suggests (that does not, of course, make it any less respectable).

There are many references to planets being placed in a navamsha, which

is not identical with the rasi whose name the navamsha enjoys, and the

results from them in the 21st adhyaaya. How do you map back such a

navamsha to the rasi and what should be the logic? You also see

reference to Guru occupying own Trimshamsha, irrespective of rasi in the

same adhayaaya. There are too many references like this to question the

theory that the amshas need always be mapped back to identical rasi in

rasi chart.

 

Could you tell why this reluctance to accept Varaha Mihira?

 

Chandrashekhar.

 

vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>

> Meshamshe, Vrishamshe Transit results can be seen from Mesha and

> Vrishabha rashis.Thus you are aware of what i am saying.Moreover we

> have seen paparkshe.we have seen meshadi rashige swamshe.we have seen

> that bhrigwonkaraka varge ,as per your understanding cannot satisfy

> both mars and venus.The very next shloka is talking about mars and

> venus yuti or aspecting.

>

> Now we can forget all these as you are not williing to accept

> rashi,riksha etc as valid reasoning.

>

> We have seen Lagna shadvargake shloka with aspectual grades,proving

> that they ae not rashi drishtis.Couple of days back and many times in

> the past,i have heard from you that you don't support aspects in

> Vargas.

>

> If you still have the sam views,then to understand shadvargake

> shloka,we have to see planets aspecting lagna in ''six charts''.As

> lagna can fall in any rashi,you have to accept aspects fully in all

> Varga charts.

>

> This is relevant to our discussion as lagnamsha is also part of

> shadvargas of lagna.

>

> As you are aware ,the BPHS translator too has expressed his concern.

>

> Regds

> Pradeep

>

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > How could I think shadvarga of lagna is shadvarga of rashi? Lagna

> is the

> > point on the eastern horizon at the time of birth of a jataka.

> >

> > There is no dispute about what is lagnamsha and what is karakamsha

> at

> > all. At the same time when reference is to a graha falling in

> Lagnamsha

> > it refers to the navamsha rasi (or sector ruled by one of the rasis

> of a

> > planet, barring Sun and Chandra if you like it that way) in which

> the

> > lagnamsha falls. Now that being so where is the shubha graha

> supposed to

> > fall in the shloka I quoted? Same with the Shubh graha in

> Karakamsha and

> > needing drishti of shubha graha on it. It is easy to say that

> these

> > need to be seen in rasi, but for lack of the reference to rasi,

> there,

> > there is no reason to assume that it does not refer to navamsha

> rasi.

> > The reference to grahas in " Meshaamshe " , " Vrishabhaamshe " etc are

> quite

> > clear, in BPHS.

> >

> > Take care,

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > Of course Yes,you are correct.Varga is found for this bindu and in

> > > the case of planets their degree decides.The rest you have stated

> is

> > > also as per definition.My point was made under the impression that

> > > you have a view that,shadvarga of Lagna is shadvarga of a

> rashi.If so

> > > it is not.Shad varga is found for Lagna bindu.

> > >

> > > The full Rashi/Kshethra in which Lagna bindu falls becomes its

> first

> > > Varga.

> > >

> > > The Translation is entiterely correct and no one can

> contradict.This

> > > is similar to one planet aspecting shadvargas of lagna.

> > >

> > > Lagnamsha is already covered in the shadvargas of

> lagna.Karakamsha is

> > > similar too.

> > >

> > > Now let us see it on a chart.Karkamasha is in Dhanu.Jupiter is

> placed

> > > in Mithuna Rashi.Shubha graha is aspecting Karakamsha Lagna

> > > (Rashi).Similarly Lagnamsha.

> > >

> > > You are already aware of the rules for aspects.

> > >

> > > Respect

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > I see your point of view. anyway even within shadvargas we look

> for

> > > the

> > > > degree of a planet falling within a certain span of degrees and

> not

> > > one

> > > > particular bindu.

> > > >

> > > > I agree that rashi is a Varga and my question is if one can

> look at

> > > > aspects in one Varga why not in other Vargas? I am sure you know

> > > that

> > > > personally I use navamsha to find only the strength of grahas,

> but

> > > there

> > > > is no reason to rule out aspects in Navamshas or other charts

> > > totally.

> > > > One of the raj yogas mentioned by Parashara talks of aspect of

> > > shubha

> > > > grahas on the karakamsha and Lagnamsha which should also be

> > > tenanted by

> > > > Shubha grahas, leaving no doubt as to where the aspects are to

> be

> > > seen.

> > > > And for the record the translation to that effect is by an

> eminent

> > > > astrologer who was Professor of astrology in Banaras Hindu

> > > University.

> > > >

> > > > Take care,

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > >

> > > > > Lagna as a bindu was mentioned for driving home the shadvarga

> > > > > calculations,if any members were having doubts.For shadvarga

> > > > > calculation of planets too we need the bindu or degree of a

> planet

> > > > > within a rashi, as you are aware.

> > > > >

> > > > > We have to look at Rashis.This is so because Rashi (one 30

> degree

> > > > > sector ) is the first varga.As this Varga is synonymous with

> Bhava

> > > > > houses are analysed w.r to Rashis.

> > > > >

> > > > > Respect

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If lagna is a bindu a you propose, and nothing more, then

> how

> > > can

> > > > > it

> > > > > > indicate an entire rasi? Now if this is correct, and

> technically

> > > > > it is,

> > > > > > then by your reckoning there is no need to look at rasis

> too. Is

> > > > > that

> > > > > > what you mean to say?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If shadvargas are not related to the portion falling in the

> > > lagna

> > > > > rasis,

> > > > > > which holds the degree of lagna Madhya, then it appears we

> must

> > > ask

> > > > > the

> > > > > > sages to redefine Vargas. I doubt they need our advise.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > There was a purpose.I just wanted to explain it to the

> > > members if

> > > > > > > some of them are not sure on what shadvarga of lagna is

> and

> > > how it

> > > > > > > is calculated.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > As you have said Vargas are divisions of a rashi.But

> > > shadvargas of

> > > > > > > Lagna is not the Vargas falling in Lagna.Here lagna is

> not a

> > > > > > > rashi,but a bindu.Vargas are found from a degree.The

> degree

> > > of a

> > > > > > > planet or degree of lagna.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > As you may know we do notneed six charts to dtermine

> > > shadvargas of

> > > > > > > lagna.All we need is the degree of lagna and the rashi

> rising.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Let us take an example.Lagna is at 11 degrees in dhanu.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Let us find the shadvargas of Lagna with th help of rising

> > > rashi

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > degree.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > 1st Varga - The Rashi in which Lagna bindu is falling -

> Dhanu

> > > > > > > 2nd Varga - The Hora in which Lagna bindu is falling - As

> 11

> > > > > degrees

> > > > > > > falls in the 1st half of dhanu - Surya Hora

> > > > > > > 3rd Varga - The drekkana in which Lagna bindu is falling -

> As

> > > 11

> > > > > > > degrees falls in the 2nd 1/3rd of dhanu - Drekkana is

> Mesha.

> > > > > > > 4th Varga - As 11 degrees falls in the 3rd

> saptamsha ,Lagna

> > > > > saptamsha

> > > > > > > is Kumbha.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Similraly - Lagna navamsha is Karka,Lagna Trimshamsha is

> > > dhanu.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Thus the purpose of whole exercise was to say that when

> we say

> > > > > > > shadvargas of Lagna or Mars,it does not mean the rashis

> owned

> > > by

> > > > > > > Lagna or Mars.But the Rashis on towhich they are

> placed,having

> > > > > > > hora,drekkana etc etc.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Vargas of Mars in the 2nd Rashi from karakamsha too is no

> > > > > differet.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > There are many meanings,that is why Rashi is called as

> > > > > > > Kshethra /Riksha /havana etc.But i don't think sage will

> use

> > > the

> > > > > > > saword to represent something belonging to same class.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > For example sage will not use ''sva'' to mean 2nd as well

> as

> > > > > 3rd.Then

> > > > > > > we cannot interpret.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Similarly Rashi and navamsha will not be represented

> using the

> > > > > same

> > > > > > > word.Rashi/Kshethra/Riksha/Bhvana/Lagna etc are synonyms

> an

> > > ifthey

> > > > > > > are used for navamsha then what is the whole purpose

> behind

> > > > > defintion.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > On the other hand sva was used for iems from different

> > > classes.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > This wasin mind while making such a statement.I will try

> my

> > > best

> > > > > to

> > > > > > > polish my style of writing.I accept my limitations in

> writing.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I have not understood your question or the intent behind

> > > that.

> > > > > The

> > > > > > > > Vargas are divisions, within a rasi, ruled by different

> > > grahas.

> > > > > So

> > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > one wants t look at Vargas falling in lagna the shad

> Vargas

> > > will

> > > > > > > mean

> > > > > > > > the rasi equivalent occurring at lagna position in the 6

> > > > > divisional

> > > > > > > > charts of Rashi, Hora, Dreshkana, Navamsha,

> Dwaadashamsha

> > > and

> > > > > > > > Trimshamsha. Or at least this is what I have learnt.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Sages did not use words in vain or context. I agree. But

> > > that

> > > > > does

> > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > mean they used the words to mean only one thing always.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I never said that the meaning can be changed to suit our

> > > > > > > convenience and

> > > > > > > > I would request you not to attribute such sentiments to

> me.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > However I do say that word are used in different

> contexts to

> > > > > mean

> > > > > > > > different things, especially in Sanskrit texts of

> Jyotish. I

> > > > > have,

> > > > > > > just

> > > > > > > > a few minutes back use of " Sva " with different meaning

> at

> > > > > different

> > > > > > > > places by Varaha Mihira to you. I hope you do not also

> > > attribute

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > words that you attributed to me to the venerated Varaha

> > > Mihira.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar,.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Pls tell me what you mean by shadvargas of lagna.How

> do

> > > you

> > > > > find

> > > > > > > > > them.Do you go by ownership or placement

> > > > > > > (Rashi/navamsha/dwadshamsha

> > > > > > > > > etc).

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > There are shlokas in Varahamihiras text which

> > > says ,Okarkshe

> > > > > > > > > Purushamshakae.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Which means in Ojarashi and Oja amsha.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > As per me sages will not use any words out of

> context.If

> > > he

> > > > > wants

> > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > say amsha he will mention it.He will not use Rashi to

> > > mean as

> > > > > > > amsha.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Ojarkshe is Oja Rashi.Similarly Paparkshe is Papa

> Rashi.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > If you want to say as per our conveninece we can

> change

> > > the

> > > > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > > > of riksha/rashi/bhavana/bhavas as navamsha then i

> cannot

> > > say

> > > > > > > > > anything.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I can only respect your views.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I will tell you why that happens. You begin with

> quoting

> > > > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > then give a sutra from Jaimini as being said by

> > > Parashara.

> > > > > > > > > > Interpretation of sutras is not the easiest of the

> > > things,

> > > > > more

> > > > > > > so

> > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > Jaimini's Upadesha sutras. That the sutras use

> > > KaTaPaYaadi

> > > > > > > > > encryption

> > > > > > > > > > makes them even more difficult to interpret. I am

> sure

> > > you

> > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > noticed

> > > > > > > > > > this when Sreenadh interpreted the KaTaPaYaadi

> Varga in

> > > a

> > > > > wrong

> > > > > > > > > fashion.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Then there is your insistence to let Sanskrit

> grammar

> > > give

> > > > > a go

> > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > that can make interpretation of a shloka or sutra

> fit

> > > your

> > > > > > > > > proposition.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Any of the Shodasha Vargas of a rasi can be

> referred to

> > > as

> > > > > > > Varga,

> > > > > > > > > but as

> > > > > > > > > > far as I know in astrology, when one talks of Varga,

> > > without

> > > > > > > > > qualifying

> > > > > > > > > > it, or Amshas that generally refers to navamsha or

> > > > > > > Dwadashaamsha.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Another reason that we can not agree, or seem to

> agree,

> > > is

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > you are

> > > > > > > > > > reluctant to call a navamsha by the nomenclature

> > > navamsha

> > > > > rasi.

> > > > > > > > > This

> > > > > > > > > > makes it difficult to convey what I mean to say in

> > > English

> > > > > as

> > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > the language of the net and which both of us know.

> Now

> > > > > since you

> > > > > > > > > do not

> > > > > > > > > > want to use the word Mesha navamsha as Mesha is a

> rashi

> > > and

> > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > logic it can not be a navamsha, it becomes

> difficult to

> > > > > convey

> > > > > > > > > what I

> > > > > > > > > > understand by the texts.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I will like to draw your attention to the literal

> > > meaning

> > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > > rasi. It means a heap and nothing more. In astrology

> > > since

> > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > encompasses many stars that make up a nakshatra the

> > > 1/12th

> > > > > > > > > division of

> > > > > > > > > > the zodiac is called a Rasi. Or at least this is my

> > > > > > > understanding

> > > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > reason of using the word rasi for the 1/12th

> division

> > > of the

> > > > > > > > > zodiac.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I do not agree that by Chandra in Guru Varga it is

> meant

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > Varga of

> > > > > > > > > > Chandra is being seen. To me we are talking about is

> > > whether

> > > > > > > > > Chandra is

> > > > > > > > > > falling in the Varga of Guru in which ever rasi he

> is

> > > > > occupying.

> > > > > > > > > So in

> > > > > > > > > > Navamsha we see whether Chandra is occupying Pisces

> or

> > > > > > > Sagittarius

> > > > > > > > > > navamsha. I also do not agree that there are Vargas

> of

> > > > > Chandra

> > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > of any

> > > > > > > > > > planet for that matter. The 16 Vargas that Parashara

> > > talks

> > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > that of a Rasi, beginning from the Rashi itself.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > If the Vargas are not owned by different planets,

> pray

> > > why

> > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > the sage

> > > > > > > > > > tell us to see occupation of a friend, own etc.

> Varga to

> > > > > assess

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > strength of a planet in the Varga concerned?

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I have interacted with many astrologers of

> yesteryears

> > > (with

> > > > > > > > > respect to

> > > > > > > > > > my age group) and have never found them claiming the

> > > Vargas

> > > > > to

> > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > only lagna and planets.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > If you insist that sage Parashara gave the SU. 52.-

> > > " Tatra

> > > > > > > > > bhrigwongaraka

> > > > > > > > > > varge paradarikaha " , perhaps you are referring to

> some

> > > > > edition

> > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > BPHS

> > > > > > > > > > that I do not have. However I do have that in the

> > > umpteen

> > > > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > texts on Jaimini that I do have in my library. And

> by

> > > the

> > > > > way,

> > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > scholars have interpreted that to mean 9th from

> > > Karakamsha

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > the 2nd.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I do not agree that a graha can simultaneously

> occupy

> > > the

> > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars, simultaneously, as is being

> suggested

> > > > > whether in

> > > > > > > > > rasi or

> > > > > > > > > > in any of the Vargas. It could only occupy one or

> the

> > > other.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I have seen you arguing in favor of looking at the

> > > > > Shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > grahas Venus and Mars. I would like you to look at

> all

> > > the

> > > > > six

> > > > > > > > > charts

> > > > > > > > > > whose Vargas together are referred as Shadvargas and

> > > try to

> > > > > find

> > > > > > > > > out

> > > > > > > > > > whether they do indeed contain the 6 Vargas of Venus

> > > and 6

> > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > Mars. I am sure that you will find them to contain

> only

> > > 5

> > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > each of

> > > > > > > > > > the grahas. Once you confirm this by looking at the

> 6

> > > Vargas

> > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > self,

> > > > > > > > > > tell me how one can look at Shadvargas of Venus or

> Mars

> > > as

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > suggested to be the interpretation of the sutra that

> > > you are

> > > > > > > > > referring to.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > You may also be interested to know that Parashara

> talks

> > > of

> > > > > AK

> > > > > > > > > falling in

> > > > > > > > > > the Varga of Chandra, Mars or Venus also having the

> > > roving

> > > > > eye

> > > > > > > on

> > > > > > > > > others

> > > > > > > > > > wives. So the combination of Venus and Mars being

> the

> > > only

> > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > giving

> > > > > > > > > > the roving eye for other's wives, that you are

> > > advancing as

> > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > standalone

> > > > > > > > > > principle, may not, necessarily, be the way the sage

> > > looked

> > > > > at

> > > > > > > > > their

> > > > > > > > > > interpretation.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Those were written by me.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I am very dissappointed to see that ,inspite of

> > > repeating

> > > > > > > numerus

> > > > > > > > > > > times,you are unable to get what i am saying.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I am not talking about rashis lorded by shukra or

> Mars

> > > > > here.I

> > > > > > > am

> > > > > > > > > > > talking about the shadvargas vargas of mars and

> > > shukra.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Pls tell me what is the meaning of shadvargas or

> > > simply

> > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > lagna.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > It is the rashi in which lagna is placed.The

> > > navamshaka of

> > > > > > > > > > > Lagna,Trimshamshaka of Lagna etc.Can we see any

> > > lordship

> > > > > as

> > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > say.Lagna does not own any rashi.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Similarly when we say vargas of Venus -It means

> Rashi

> > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > Venus,Hora,navamshaka,drekkana,trimshamshaka etc.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Shadvarga is never the rashi owned by a

> planet.Then

> > > Lagna

> > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > never

> > > > > > > > > > > have shadvarga.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say,Chandra in Guru

> Varga - We

> > > > > are not

> > > > > > > > > seeing

> > > > > > > > > > > the shadvarga of Guru,but that of chandra.Is

> chandra

> > > > > placed in

> > > > > > > > > Guru

> > > > > > > > > > > Rashi?Is Chandra navamshaka in Guru Rashi.Is

> Chandra

> > > > > > > > > Trimshamshaka in

> > > > > > > > > > > Guru Rashi etc is what we check.If so chandras

> vargas

> > > > > fall in

> > > > > > > > > guru

> > > > > > > > > > > rashis or we say chandra is in guruvargas.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > For the same reason schoplars of yesteryears

> always

> > > say

> > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > for our natal Lagna and Planets.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand you are taking them as owned by

> a

> > > > > > > planet.Every

> > > > > > > > > > > shadvarga that derive is like that.You may check

> this

> > > with

> > > > > > > shri

> > > > > > > > > > > Narasimha,how he is deriving it for his software.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > For the same reason Bhrigu and Angara can have

> Varga

> > > > > together

> > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > Rashi which is 2nd from Karakamsha.Sage clearly

> talks

> > > > > about

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > vargas from both.Moreover the next shloka is

> talking

> > > about

> > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > Venus together or aspecting the 2nd from

> karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we go by your explanation,we

> > > have to

> > > > > opt

> > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > just one among shukra or Mars which is not

> > > proper.Their

> > > > > Joint

> > > > > > > > > > > influence creates sexual drive.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I request you to kindly read this with care.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Rspect

> > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > The below remarks are not from my mail at all.

> I do

> > > not

> > > > > know

> > > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > think I would write that. I am sure you know

> that

> > > this

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > my

> > > > > > > > > > > style

> > > > > > > > > > > > of writing at all.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > " >From my experience -Mars + Venus creates

> certin

> > > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why are you

> going

> > > for

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > owned by

> > > > > > > > > > > > just one of them and that too without a

> planetary

> > > link

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > really

> > > > > > > > > > > > worrying me.Shri Rath has translated so,i

> agree.But

> > > i

> > > > > have

> > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will definitely

> correct

> > > > > this

> > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > benfit

> > > > > > > > > > > > of jyotish community. "

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > As to why I said they could not be having their

> > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > together in

> > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > rasi or Bhava does not need any deeper

> explanation.

> > > If

> > > > > you

> > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > looking

> > > > > > > > > > > > at the 2nd from Karakamsha in the rasi chart,

> as you

> > > > > think

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > right, you

> > > > > > > > > > > > could not have both Mesha and Vrishabha or Tula

> and

> > > > > > > Vrishchika

> > > > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd from the Karakamsha, is that not so?

> Similarly

> > > if in

> > > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > chart

> > > > > > > > > > > > the 2nd from Karakamsha is to be seen, the 2nd

> > > could be

> > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > navamshas.

> > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I though you meant so.Because in subsequent

> lines

> > > we

> > > > > can

> > > > > > > see

> > > > > > > > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > and Karakamsha being used for the same

> > > purpose.But if

> > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > there are other places where swamsha is used

> for

> > > say

> > > > > > > > > > > Lagnamsha ,then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > i can trust you if you can point me to that.

> This

> > > > > should

> > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > be a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > problem and in no way it will affect us.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars can ofcourse have their Vargas

> in a

> > > > > single

> > > > > > > > > rashi or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Bhava.Venus can have navamsha there,Mars can

> have

> > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > there,Venus can have Trimshamsha there,Mars

> can

> > > have

> > > > > > > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > there,they both can have drekkana there etc

> etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus sage is talking about Bhrigu and Angara

> both

> > > (as

> > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > identified gramattically) having varga there

> and

> > > it is

> > > > > > > very

> > > > > > > > > much

> > > > > > > > > > > > > possible.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you note the next line -Sage is talking

> about

> > > both

> > > > > > > Venus

> > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > joining or aspecting the 2nd from Karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >From my experience -Mars + Venus creates

> certin

> > > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why are you

> going

> > > for

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > owned by just one of them and that too

> without a

> > > > > planetary

> > > > > > > > > link is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > really worrying me.Shri Rath has translated

> so,i

> > > > > > > agree.But i

> > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will definitely

> > > correct

> > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > for the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > benfit of jyotish community.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I am surprised as to why you say so.That they

> > > cannot

> > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > together.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pardeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have never said that I do not think that

> > > Swamsha

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > different where the context demands so. At

> the

> > > same

> > > > > > > time I

> > > > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammar can be put to rest to in the name of

> > > > > context,

> > > > > > > > > without

> > > > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > > > sound

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course if you want contextual translation

> > > only,

> > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > one can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > certainly say that the " Meshadi raashige

> > > swaamshe "

> > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > always be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > translated as " Falling in Mesha navamsha in

> > > Mesha

> > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > etc. " .

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way " Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge " ,

> that

> > > you

> > > > > > > > > mention, does

> > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean varga of both Venus and mars, but of

> varga

> > > of

> > > > > > > Venus OR

> > > > > > > > > > > Mars,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > due to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the grammar only. varga of two planets can

> not

> > > fall

> > > > > in

> > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > bhava/amsha/rasi whether in rasi or

> Navamsha or

> > > any

> > > > > > > other

> > > > > > > > > chart.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Grammatically,what you are saying is also

> > > true.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But Jyotish defintions play a preceding

> role

> > > in

> > > > > > > choosing

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammatical meaning.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example one meaning of labhe ,Swamshe

> etc

> > > is

> > > > > in

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > 11th

> > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But if we go by that we will definitely

> > > translate

> > > > > > > > > swamshe in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > meshadi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashige as ''in Swamsha'',thereby

> translating

> > > it

> > > > > as

> > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > full

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart.This as you too agree,then cannot

> pass

> > > the

> > > > > > > test,of

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > subsequent shlokas.I understand gladly

> that

> > > you

> > > > > too

> > > > > > > > > agree that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha and karakamsha are the same.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So the context decides plural/singular

> and not

> > > > > > > > > necessarily

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the ''E''

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as you have rightly mentioned.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But in essence what i want to say is ''E''

> > > does

> > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > always

> > > > > > > > > > > > > mean ''in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the'' as you have interpreted.Labheshe is

> an

> > > > > > > > > example.Karake

> > > > > > > > > > > is an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus it can very well mean Varga of

> Shukra and

> > > > > Mars-

> > > > > > > > > which can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > then be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > six vargas or one varga.(Not lordship)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra -(There) In the second from

> Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga or Vargas of Venus and Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now why should we need two qualifiesrs for

> > > > > destination

> > > > > > > (1)

> > > > > > > > > In

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from karakamsha 2)in the vargas of?)-if

> we had

> > > > > another

> > > > > > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your interpretation is right.That planet

> will

> > > > > answer

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > question -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who is in the vargas of ?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly - Swamshad dhane Shukrar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Swamshad dhane is already pointing to

> > > destination-

> > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > > > > need

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > another ''in the'' vargas of.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say in the 2nd

> from

> > > > > > > karakamsha if

> > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mars and venus are present,it fits in

> > > > > > > > > grammatically.Moreover

> > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > i had

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentioned rashi lordship without planetary

> > > link

> > > > > > > > > > > (placement/amsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > etc)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is too general.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I may be wrong but the " E " by itself

> does

> > > not

> > > > > point

> > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > It

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > word Shadvarga indicating 6 Vargas that

> is

> > > one

> > > > > group

> > > > > > > > > > > (though it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more than one unit) and so " Varge " , the

> > > > > singular is

> > > > > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " E " means " in " . I would be happy if an

> > > example

> > > > > > > > > of " Varge "

> > > > > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plural

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can be given.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not at all think that Vargaka or

> Varga

> > > is

> > > > > > > > > singular and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargake

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge is plural, at all. Both the

> manner of

> > > > > using

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > indicates singular. it is no use

> projecting

> > > > > what is

> > > > > > > > > clearly

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Saptami

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vibhakti and singular as being a plural

> > > word. If

> > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > to be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dvivachana it may become " VargyoH "

> > > or " VargeSu "

> > > > > (for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > bahuvachan)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge. Perhaps some Sanskrit scholar on

> the

> > > list

> > > > > > > would

> > > > > > > > > like

> > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > comment

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on this.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, much as I would like it to resolve,

> the

> > > > > issue

> > > > > > > > > remains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unresolved.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will give you a relevant example to

> > > explain

> > > > > how

> > > > > > > > > VarGE

> > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > context of plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna Shad-VargaKE - Is pointing to

> all

> > > > > vargas -

> > > > > > > > > > > Plural.You

> > > > > > > > > > > > > may

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > note

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that the grammatical ending is

> with ''E''

> > > > > showing

> > > > > > > > > plurals

> > > > > > > > > > > > > too can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expressed with such an ending.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now from Vrishamsha''Ka'' and Tulamsha

> > > > > example we

> > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > conclude

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VargaKA and VarGA can be used for the

> same

> > > > > > > purpose in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ekavachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > singular form and VargaKE and VarGE

> can be

> > > > > used

> > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Bahuvachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plural form.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope this may help us in resolving

> our

> > > > > issue.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > > > -----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

> message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have

> been

> > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > > > -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > -------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > -----------------

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > > > > > -------

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.0/886 -

> > > Release

> > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > ---------------------

> ----

> > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.0/886 -

> Release

> > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandrashekhar ji

 

Purna drishte Purna Yogam Ardha Drishte ardhameva cha

Pada drishte Padayogamiti gyeyam kramat phalam.

 

Is mentioned and hence the aspects are not about Rashi drishti.

 

Now as i have mentioned in the past,though the name is

dashadhyayi,the author covers shlokas,from most of the chapters as

and when he finds some interrelationship or link.This i consider as a

real blessing.Now how amshakas are interpreted,has been

demonstrated ,for numerous contexts,and thus forming a guideline for

other shloka interpretations.

 

I will see the shlokas,and will write back.

 

Respect

Pradeep

 

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> Transits are to be seen no doubt from the rasis synonymous to the

> navamsha rasis, but when it is sphuta it is of the navamshesha and

not

> the rasis. There is a difference between the two.

>

> I have already said I do not consider aspects in D-charts, unless

> specifically mentioned in some yogas, and also that barring

navamsha

> charts, in other varga charts I look at rashi aspects. That does

not

> mean I should close my eyes to what is written in other respected

texts.

> That only means I look at charts from a different angle.

>

> There is nothing in the lagna shadvargake shloka to indicate graded

> aspects and so it does not rule out rashi drishti at all. Ans since

you

> have quoted both Parashara and Jaimini you should know that rashi

> drishtis are valid in Parashara too and exclusively so in Jaimini.

>

> Your translation and mine of the shlokas differ and that is why

there is

> no agreement. If you expect Dashaadhyaayi to give divisional charts

and

> their interpretations, that is not possible as Varaha Mihira on

whose

> work it is only a commentary does not speak of it and it is

commentary

> on only 10 of the 18 adhayaayas of Brihat jataka. If you read

Brihat

> jataka carefully, you will see reference o aspects in Trimshamsha

there.

> Since you have many times claimed superiority of Dashaadhyaayi over

many

> of the more ancient and respected classics, I find it strange as to

why

> you do not want to accept what is said in the original text on

which

> Dashaadhyaayi is only a commentary and that too on 10 adhyaayas as

the

> name suggests (that does not, of course, make it any less

respectable).

> There are many references to planets being placed in a navamsha,

which

> is not identical with the rasi whose name the navamsha enjoys, and

the

> results from them in the 21st adhyaaya. How do you map back such a

> navamsha to the rasi and what should be the logic? You also see

> reference to Guru occupying own Trimshamsha, irrespective of rasi

in the

> same adhayaaya. There are too many references like this to question

the

> theory that the amshas need always be mapped back to identical rasi

in

> rasi chart.

>

> Could you tell why this reluctance to accept Varaha Mihira?

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >

> > Meshamshe, Vrishamshe Transit results can be seen from Mesha and

> > Vrishabha rashis.Thus you are aware of what i am saying.Moreover

we

> > have seen paparkshe.we have seen meshadi rashige swamshe.we have

seen

> > that bhrigwonkaraka varge ,as per your understanding cannot

satisfy

> > both mars and venus.The very next shloka is talking about mars and

> > venus yuti or aspecting.

> >

> > Now we can forget all these as you are not williing to accept

> > rashi,riksha etc as valid reasoning.

> >

> > We have seen Lagna shadvargake shloka with aspectual

grades,proving

> > that they ae not rashi drishtis.Couple of days back and many

times in

> > the past,i have heard from you that you don't support aspects in

> > Vargas.

> >

> > If you still have the sam views,then to understand shadvargake

> > shloka,we have to see planets aspecting lagna in ''six charts''.As

> > lagna can fall in any rashi,you have to accept aspects fully in

all

> > Varga charts.

> >

> > This is relevant to our discussion as lagnamsha is also part of

> > shadvargas of lagna.

> >

> > As you are aware ,the BPHS translator too has expressed his

concern.

> >

> > Regds

> > Pradeep

> >

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > How could I think shadvarga of lagna is shadvarga of rashi?

Lagna

> > is the

> > > point on the eastern horizon at the time of birth of a jataka.

> > >

> > > There is no dispute about what is lagnamsha and what is

karakamsha

> > at

> > > all. At the same time when reference is to a graha falling in

> > Lagnamsha

> > > it refers to the navamsha rasi (or sector ruled by one of the

rasis

> > of a

> > > planet, barring Sun and Chandra if you like it that way) in

which

> > the

> > > lagnamsha falls. Now that being so where is the shubha graha

> > supposed to

> > > fall in the shloka I quoted? Same with the Shubh graha in

> > Karakamsha and

> > > needing drishti of shubha graha on it. It is easy to say that

> > these

> > > need to be seen in rasi, but for lack of the reference to rasi,

> > there,

> > > there is no reason to assume that it does not refer to navamsha

> > rasi.

> > > The reference to grahas in " Meshaamshe " , " Vrishabhaamshe " etc

are

> > quite

> > > clear, in BPHS.

> > >

> > > Take care,

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > >

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > >

> > > > Of course Yes,you are correct.Varga is found for this bindu

and in

> > > > the case of planets their degree decides.The rest you have

stated

> > is

> > > > also as per definition.My point was made under the impression

that

> > > > you have a view that,shadvarga of Lagna is shadvarga of a

> > rashi.If so

> > > > it is not.Shad varga is found for Lagna bindu.

> > > >

> > > > The full Rashi/Kshethra in which Lagna bindu falls becomes its

> > first

> > > > Varga.

> > > >

> > > > The Translation is entiterely correct and no one can

> > contradict.This

> > > > is similar to one planet aspecting shadvargas of lagna.

> > > >

> > > > Lagnamsha is already covered in the shadvargas of

> > lagna.Karakamsha is

> > > > similar too.

> > > >

> > > > Now let us see it on a chart.Karkamasha is in Dhanu.Jupiter is

> > placed

> > > > in Mithuna Rashi.Shubha graha is aspecting Karakamsha Lagna

> > > > (Rashi).Similarly Lagnamsha.

> > > >

> > > > You are already aware of the rules for aspects.

> > > >

> > > > Respect

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > I see your point of view. anyway even within shadvargas we

look

> > for

> > > > the

> > > > > degree of a planet falling within a certain span of degrees

and

> > not

> > > > one

> > > > > particular bindu.

> > > > >

> > > > > I agree that rashi is a Varga and my question is if one can

> > look at

> > > > > aspects in one Varga why not in other Vargas? I am sure you

know

> > > > that

> > > > > personally I use navamsha to find only the strength of

grahas,

> > but

> > > > there

> > > > > is no reason to rule out aspects in Navamshas or other

charts

> > > > totally.

> > > > > One of the raj yogas mentioned by Parashara talks of aspect

of

> > > > shubha

> > > > > grahas on the karakamsha and Lagnamsha which should also be

> > > > tenanted by

> > > > > Shubha grahas, leaving no doubt as to where the aspects are

to

> > be

> > > > seen.

> > > > > And for the record the translation to that effect is by an

> > eminent

> > > > > astrologer who was Professor of astrology in Banaras Hindu

> > > > University.

> > > > >

> > > > > Take care,

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Lagna as a bindu was mentioned for driving home the

shadvarga

> > > > > > calculations,if any members were having doubts.For

shadvarga

> > > > > > calculation of planets too we need the bindu or degree of

a

> > planet

> > > > > > within a rashi, as you are aware.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > We have to look at Rashis.This is so because Rashi (one 30

> > degree

> > > > > > sector ) is the first varga.As this Varga is synonymous

with

> > Bhava

> > > > > > houses are analysed w.r to Rashis.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > If lagna is a bindu a you propose, and nothing more,

then

> > how

> > > > can

> > > > > > it

> > > > > > > indicate an entire rasi? Now if this is correct, and

> > technically

> > > > > > it is,

> > > > > > > then by your reckoning there is no need to look at rasis

> > too. Is

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > > what you mean to say?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > If shadvargas are not related to the portion falling in

the

> > > > lagna

> > > > > > rasis,

> > > > > > > which holds the degree of lagna Madhya, then it appears

we

> > must

> > > > ask

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > sages to redefine Vargas. I doubt they need our advise.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > There was a purpose.I just wanted to explain it to the

> > > > members if

> > > > > > > > some of them are not sure on what shadvarga of lagna

is

> > and

> > > > how it

> > > > > > > > is calculated.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > As you have said Vargas are divisions of a rashi.But

> > > > shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > Lagna is not the Vargas falling in Lagna.Here lagna is

> > not a

> > > > > > > > rashi,but a bindu.Vargas are found from a degree.The

> > degree

> > > > of a

> > > > > > > > planet or degree of lagna.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > As you may know we do notneed six charts to dtermine

> > > > shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > lagna.All we need is the degree of lagna and the rashi

> > rising.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Let us take an example.Lagna is at 11 degrees in

dhanu.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Let us find the shadvargas of Lagna with th help of

rising

> > > > rashi

> > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > degree.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > 1st Varga - The Rashi in which Lagna bindu is

falling -

> > Dhanu

> > > > > > > > 2nd Varga - The Hora in which Lagna bindu is falling -

As

> > 11

> > > > > > degrees

> > > > > > > > falls in the 1st half of dhanu - Surya Hora

> > > > > > > > 3rd Varga - The drekkana in which Lagna bindu is

falling -

> > As

> > > > 11

> > > > > > > > degrees falls in the 2nd 1/3rd of dhanu - Drekkana is

> > Mesha.

> > > > > > > > 4th Varga - As 11 degrees falls in the 3rd

> > saptamsha ,Lagna

> > > > > > saptamsha

> > > > > > > > is Kumbha.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Similraly - Lagna navamsha is Karka,Lagna Trimshamsha

is

> > > > dhanu.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Thus the purpose of whole exercise was to say that

when

> > we say

> > > > > > > > shadvargas of Lagna or Mars,it does not mean the

rashis

> > owned

> > > > by

> > > > > > > > Lagna or Mars.But the Rashis on towhich they are

> > placed,having

> > > > > > > > hora,drekkana etc etc.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Vargas of Mars in the 2nd Rashi from karakamsha too

is no

> > > > > > differet.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > There are many meanings,that is why Rashi is called as

> > > > > > > > Kshethra /Riksha /havana etc.But i don't think sage

will

> > use

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > saword to represent something belonging to same class.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > For example sage will not use ''sva'' to mean 2nd as

well

> > as

> > > > > > 3rd.Then

> > > > > > > > we cannot interpret.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Similarly Rashi and navamsha will not be represented

> > using the

> > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > word.Rashi/Kshethra/Riksha/Bhvana/Lagna etc are

synonyms

> > an

> > > > ifthey

> > > > > > > > are used for navamsha then what is the whole purpose

> > behind

> > > > > > defintion.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > On the other hand sva was used for iems from different

> > > > classes.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > This wasin mind while making such a statement.I will

try

> > my

> > > > best

> > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > polish my style of writing.I accept my limitations in

> > writing.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>,

Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I have not understood your question or the intent

behind

> > > > that.

> > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > Vargas are divisions, within a rasi, ruled by

different

> > > > grahas.

> > > > > > So

> > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > one wants t look at Vargas falling in lagna the shad

> > Vargas

> > > > will

> > > > > > > > mean

> > > > > > > > > the rasi equivalent occurring at lagna position in

the 6

> > > > > > divisional

> > > > > > > > > charts of Rashi, Hora, Dreshkana, Navamsha,

> > Dwaadashamsha

> > > > and

> > > > > > > > > Trimshamsha. Or at least this is what I have learnt.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Sages did not use words in vain or context. I

agree. But

> > > > that

> > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > mean they used the words to mean only one thing

always.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I never said that the meaning can be changed to

suit our

> > > > > > > > convenience and

> > > > > > > > > I would request you not to attribute such

sentiments to

> > me.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > However I do say that word are used in different

> > contexts to

> > > > > > mean

> > > > > > > > > different things, especially in Sanskrit texts of

> > Jyotish. I

> > > > > > have,

> > > > > > > > just

> > > > > > > > > a few minutes back use of " Sva " with different

meaning

> > at

> > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > places by Varaha Mihira to you. I hope you do not

also

> > > > attribute

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > words that you attributed to me to the venerated

Varaha

> > > > Mihira.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar,.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Pls tell me what you mean by shadvargas of

lagna.How

> > do

> > > > you

> > > > > > find

> > > > > > > > > > them.Do you go by ownership or placement

> > > > > > > > (Rashi/navamsha/dwadshamsha

> > > > > > > > > > etc).

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > There are shlokas in Varahamihiras text which

> > > > says ,Okarkshe

> > > > > > > > > > Purushamshakae.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Which means in Ojarashi and Oja amsha.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > As per me sages will not use any words out of

> > context.If

> > > > he

> > > > > > wants

> > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > say amsha he will mention it.He will not use

Rashi to

> > > > mean as

> > > > > > > > amsha.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Ojarkshe is Oja Rashi.Similarly Paparkshe is Papa

> > Rashi.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > If you want to say as per our conveninece we can

> > change

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > > > > of riksha/rashi/bhavana/bhavas as navamsha then i

> > cannot

> > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > anything.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I can only respect your views.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I will tell you why that happens. You begin with

> > quoting

> > > > > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > then give a sutra from Jaimini as being said by

> > > > Parashara.

> > > > > > > > > > > Interpretation of sutras is not the easiest of

the

> > > > things,

> > > > > > more

> > > > > > > > so

> > > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > Jaimini's Upadesha sutras. That the sutras use

> > > > KaTaPaYaadi

> > > > > > > > > > encryption

> > > > > > > > > > > makes them even more difficult to interpret. I

am

> > sure

> > > > you

> > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > noticed

> > > > > > > > > > > this when Sreenadh interpreted the KaTaPaYaadi

> > Varga in

> > > > a

> > > > > > wrong

> > > > > > > > > > fashion.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Then there is your insistence to let Sanskrit

> > grammar

> > > > give

> > > > > > a go

> > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > that can make interpretation of a shloka or

sutra

> > fit

> > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > proposition.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Any of the Shodasha Vargas of a rasi can be

> > referred to

> > > > as

> > > > > > > > Varga,

> > > > > > > > > > but as

> > > > > > > > > > > far as I know in astrology, when one talks of

Varga,

> > > > without

> > > > > > > > > > qualifying

> > > > > > > > > > > it, or Amshas that generally refers to navamsha

or

> > > > > > > > Dwadashaamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Another reason that we can not agree, or seem to

> > agree,

> > > > is

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > you are

> > > > > > > > > > > reluctant to call a navamsha by the nomenclature

> > > > navamsha

> > > > > > rasi.

> > > > > > > > > > This

> > > > > > > > > > > makes it difficult to convey what I mean to say

in

> > > > English

> > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > the language of the net and which both of us

know.

> > Now

> > > > > > since you

> > > > > > > > > > do not

> > > > > > > > > > > want to use the word Mesha navamsha as Mesha is

a

> > rashi

> > > > and

> > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > logic it can not be a navamsha, it becomes

> > difficult to

> > > > > > convey

> > > > > > > > > > what I

> > > > > > > > > > > understand by the texts.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I will like to draw your attention to the

literal

> > > > meaning

> > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > > > rasi. It means a heap and nothing more. In

astrology

> > > > since

> > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > > encompasses many stars that make up a nakshatra

the

> > > > 1/12th

> > > > > > > > > > division of

> > > > > > > > > > > the zodiac is called a Rasi. Or at least this

is my

> > > > > > > > understanding

> > > > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > reason of using the word rasi for the 1/12th

> > division

> > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > zodiac.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I do not agree that by Chandra in Guru Varga it

is

> > meant

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > Varga of

> > > > > > > > > > > Chandra is being seen. To me we are talking

about is

> > > > whether

> > > > > > > > > > Chandra is

> > > > > > > > > > > falling in the Varga of Guru in which ever rasi

he

> > is

> > > > > > occupying.

> > > > > > > > > > So in

> > > > > > > > > > > Navamsha we see whether Chandra is occupying

Pisces

> > or

> > > > > > > > Sagittarius

> > > > > > > > > > > navamsha. I also do not agree that there are

Vargas

> > of

> > > > > > Chandra

> > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > of any

> > > > > > > > > > > planet for that matter. The 16 Vargas that

Parashara

> > > > talks

> > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > that of a Rasi, beginning from the Rashi itself.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > If the Vargas are not owned by different

planets,

> > pray

> > > > why

> > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > the sage

> > > > > > > > > > > tell us to see occupation of a friend, own etc.

> > Varga to

> > > > > > assess

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > strength of a planet in the Varga concerned?

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I have interacted with many astrologers of

> > yesteryears

> > > > (with

> > > > > > > > > > respect to

> > > > > > > > > > > my age group) and have never found them

claiming the

> > > > Vargas

> > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > only lagna and planets.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > If you insist that sage Parashara gave the SU.

52.-

> > > > " Tatra

> > > > > > > > > > bhrigwongaraka

> > > > > > > > > > > varge paradarikaha " , perhaps you are referring

to

> > some

> > > > > > edition

> > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > BPHS

> > > > > > > > > > > that I do not have. However I do have that in

the

> > > > umpteen

> > > > > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > > texts on Jaimini that I do have in my library.

And

> > by

> > > > the

> > > > > > way,

> > > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > scholars have interpreted that to mean 9th from

> > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > the 2nd.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I do not agree that a graha can simultaneously

> > occupy

> > > > the

> > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars, simultaneously, as is being

> > suggested

> > > > > > whether in

> > > > > > > > > > rasi or

> > > > > > > > > > > in any of the Vargas. It could only occupy one

or

> > the

> > > > other.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I have seen you arguing in favor of looking at

the

> > > > > > Shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > grahas Venus and Mars. I would like you to look

at

> > all

> > > > the

> > > > > > six

> > > > > > > > > > charts

> > > > > > > > > > > whose Vargas together are referred as

Shadvargas and

> > > > try to

> > > > > > find

> > > > > > > > > > out

> > > > > > > > > > > whether they do indeed contain the 6 Vargas of

Venus

> > > > and 6

> > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > Mars. I am sure that you will find them to

contain

> > only

> > > > 5

> > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > each of

> > > > > > > > > > > the grahas. Once you confirm this by looking at

the

> > 6

> > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > self,

> > > > > > > > > > > tell me how one can look at Shadvargas of Venus

or

> > Mars

> > > > as

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > > suggested to be the interpretation of the sutra

that

> > > > you are

> > > > > > > > > > referring to.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > You may also be interested to know that

Parashara

> > talks

> > > > of

> > > > > > AK

> > > > > > > > > > falling in

> > > > > > > > > > > the Varga of Chandra, Mars or Venus also having

the

> > > > roving

> > > > > > eye

> > > > > > > > on

> > > > > > > > > > others

> > > > > > > > > > > wives. So the combination of Venus and Mars

being

> > the

> > > > only

> > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > giving

> > > > > > > > > > > the roving eye for other's wives, that you are

> > > > advancing as

> > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > standalone

> > > > > > > > > > > principle, may not, necessarily, be the way the

sage

> > > > looked

> > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > > > their

> > > > > > > > > > > interpretation.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Those were written by me.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I am very dissappointed to see that ,inspite

of

> > > > repeating

> > > > > > > > numerus

> > > > > > > > > > > > times,you are unable to get what i am saying.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I am not talking about rashis lorded by

shukra or

> > Mars

> > > > > > here.I

> > > > > > > > am

> > > > > > > > > > > > talking about the shadvargas vargas of mars

and

> > > > shukra.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Pls tell me what is the meaning of shadvargas

or

> > > > simply

> > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > lagna.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > It is the rashi in which lagna is placed.The

> > > > navamshaka of

> > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna,Trimshamshaka of Lagna etc.Can we see

any

> > > > lordship

> > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > say.Lagna does not own any rashi.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly when we say vargas of Venus -It

means

> > Rashi

> > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > Venus,Hora,navamshaka,drekkana,trimshamshaka

etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Shadvarga is never the rashi owned by a

> > planet.Then

> > > > Lagna

> > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > never

> > > > > > > > > > > > have shadvarga.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say,Chandra in Guru

> > Varga - We

> > > > > > are not

> > > > > > > > > > seeing

> > > > > > > > > > > > the shadvarga of Guru,but that of chandra.Is

> > chandra

> > > > > > placed in

> > > > > > > > > > Guru

> > > > > > > > > > > > Rashi?Is Chandra navamshaka in Guru Rashi.Is

> > Chandra

> > > > > > > > > > Trimshamshaka in

> > > > > > > > > > > > Guru Rashi etc is what we check.If so chandras

> > vargas

> > > > > > fall in

> > > > > > > > > > guru

> > > > > > > > > > > > rashis or we say chandra is in guruvargas.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > For the same reason schoplars of yesteryears

> > always

> > > > say

> > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > for our natal Lagna and Planets.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand you are taking them as

owned by

> > a

> > > > > > > > planet.Every

> > > > > > > > > > > > shadvarga that derive is like that.You may

check

> > this

> > > > with

> > > > > > > > shri

> > > > > > > > > > > > Narasimha,how he is deriving it for his

software.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > For the same reason Bhrigu and Angara can have

> > Varga

> > > > > > together

> > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > Rashi which is 2nd from Karakamsha.Sage

clearly

> > talks

> > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > vargas from both.Moreover the next shloka is

> > talking

> > > > about

> > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > Venus together or aspecting the 2nd from

> > karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we go by your

explanation,we

> > > > have to

> > > > > > opt

> > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > just one among shukra or Mars which is not

> > > > proper.Their

> > > > > > Joint

> > > > > > > > > > > > influence creates sexual drive.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I request you to kindly read this with care.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Rspect

> > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > The below remarks are not from my mail at

all.

> > I do

> > > > not

> > > > > > know

> > > > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > think I would write that. I am sure you know

> > that

> > > > this

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > my

> > > > > > > > > > > > style

> > > > > > > > > > > > > of writing at all.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > " >From my experience -Mars + Venus creates

> > certin

> > > > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why are you

> > going

> > > > for

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > owned by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > just one of them and that too without a

> > planetary

> > > > link

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > really

> > > > > > > > > > > > > worrying me.Shri Rath has translated so,i

> > agree.But

> > > > i

> > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will definitely

> > correct

> > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > benfit

> > > > > > > > > > > > > of jyotish community. "

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > As to why I said they could not be having

their

> > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > together in

> > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi or Bhava does not need any deeper

> > explanation.

> > > > If

> > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > looking

> > > > > > > > > > > > > at the 2nd from Karakamsha in the rasi

chart,

> > as you

> > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > right, you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > could not have both Mesha and Vrishabha or

Tula

> > and

> > > > > > > > Vrishchika

> > > > > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd from the Karakamsha, is that not so?

> > Similarly

> > > > if in

> > > > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > chart

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the 2nd from Karakamsha is to be seen, the

2nd

> > > > could be

> > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > > navamshas.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I though you meant so.Because in

subsequent

> > lines

> > > > we

> > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > see

> > > > > > > > > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and Karakamsha being used for the same

> > > > purpose.But if

> > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there are other places where swamsha is

used

> > for

> > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > > > Lagnamsha ,then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > i can trust you if you can point me to

that.

> > This

> > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > be a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > problem and in no way it will affect us.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars can ofcourse have their

Vargas

> > in a

> > > > > > single

> > > > > > > > > > rashi or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bhava.Venus can have navamsha there,Mars

can

> > have

> > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there,Venus can have Trimshamsha

there,Mars

> > can

> > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there,they both can have drekkana there

etc

> > etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus sage is talking about Bhrigu and

Angara

> > both

> > > > (as

> > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > identified gramattically) having varga

there

> > and

> > > > it is

> > > > > > > > very

> > > > > > > > > > much

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you note the next line -Sage is talking

> > about

> > > > both

> > > > > > > > Venus

> > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > joining or aspecting the 2nd from

Karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From my experience -Mars + Venus creates

> > certin

> > > > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why are

you

> > going

> > > > for

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > owned by just one of them and that too

> > without a

> > > > > > planetary

> > > > > > > > > > link is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > really worrying me.Shri Rath has

translated

> > so,i

> > > > > > > > agree.But i

> > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will

definitely

> > > > correct

> > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > for the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > benfit of jyotish community.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am surprised as to why you say so.That

they

> > > > cannot

> > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > together.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pardeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have never said that I do not think

that

> > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different where the context demands so.

At

> > the

> > > > same

> > > > > > > > time I

> > > > > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammar can be put to rest to in the

name of

> > > > > > context,

> > > > > > > > > > without

> > > > > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > sound

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course if you want contextual

translation

> > > > only,

> > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > one can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > certainly say that the " Meshadi raashige

> > > > swaamshe "

> > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > always be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > translated as " Falling in Mesha

navamsha in

> > > > Mesha

> > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > > etc. " .

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way " Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka

Varge " ,

> > that

> > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > mention, does

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean varga of both Venus and mars, but

of

> > varga

> > > > of

> > > > > > > > Venus OR

> > > > > > > > > > > > Mars,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > due to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the grammar only. varga of two planets

can

> > not

> > > > fall

> > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bhava/amsha/rasi whether in rasi or

> > Navamsha or

> > > > any

> > > > > > > > other

> > > > > > > > > > chart.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Grammatically,what you are saying is

also

> > > > true.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But Jyotish defintions play a

preceding

> > role

> > > > in

> > > > > > > > choosing

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammatical meaning.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example one meaning of

labhe ,Swamshe

> > etc

> > > > is

> > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > 11th

> > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But if we go by that we will

definitely

> > > > translate

> > > > > > > > > > swamshe in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > meshadi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashige as ''in Swamsha'',thereby

> > translating

> > > > it

> > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > full

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart.This as you too agree,then

cannot

> > pass

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > test,of

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > subsequent shlokas.I understand gladly

> > that

> > > > you

> > > > > > too

> > > > > > > > > > agree that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha and karakamsha are the same.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So the context decides plural/singular

> > and not

> > > > > > > > > > necessarily

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the ''E''

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as you have rightly mentioned.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But in essence what i want to say

is ''E''

> > > > does

> > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > always

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean ''in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the'' as you have

interpreted.Labheshe is

> > an

> > > > > > > > > > example.Karake

> > > > > > > > > > > > is an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus it can very well mean Varga of

> > Shukra and

> > > > > > Mars-

> > > > > > > > > > which can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > then be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > six vargas or one varga.(Not lordship)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra -(There) In the second from

> > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga or Vargas of Venus and Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now why should we need two

qualifiesrs for

> > > > > > destination

> > > > > > > > (1)

> > > > > > > > > > In

> > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from karakamsha 2)in the vargas of?)-

if

> > we had

> > > > > > another

> > > > > > > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your interpretation is right.That

planet

> > will

> > > > > > answer

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > question -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who is in the vargas of ?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly - Swamshad dhane Shukrar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Swamshad dhane is already pointing to

> > > > destination-

> > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > need

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > another ''in the'' vargas of.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say in the 2nd

> > from

> > > > > > > > karakamsha if

> > > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mars and venus are present,it fits in

> > > > > > > > > > grammatically.Moreover

> > > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > i had

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentioned rashi lordship without

planetary

> > > > link

> > > > > > > > > > > > (placement/amsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is too general.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

40>,

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I may be wrong but the " E " by itself

> > does

> > > > not

> > > > > > point

> > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > It

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > word Shadvarga indicating 6 Vargas

that

> > is

> > > > one

> > > > > > group

> > > > > > > > > > > > (though it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more than one unit) and so " Varge " ,

the

> > > > > > singular is

> > > > > > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " E " means " in " . I would be happy if

an

> > > > example

> > > > > > > > > > of " Varge "

> > > > > > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plural

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can be given.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not at all think that Vargaka

or

> > Varga

> > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > singular and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargake

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge is plural, at all. Both the

> > manner of

> > > > > > using

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > indicates singular. it is no use

> > projecting

> > > > > > what is

> > > > > > > > > > clearly

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saptami

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vibhakti and singular as being a

plural

> > > > word. If

> > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > to be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dvivachana it may become " VargyoH "

> > > > or " VargeSu "

> > > > > > (for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > bahuvachan)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge. Perhaps some Sanskrit

scholar on

> > the

> > > > list

> > > > > > > > would

> > > > > > > > > > like

> > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > comment

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on this.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, much as I would like it to

resolve,

> > the

> > > > > > issue

> > > > > > > > > > remains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unresolved.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will give you a relevant

example to

> > > > explain

> > > > > > how

> > > > > > > > > > VarGE

> > > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > context of plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna Shad-VargaKE - Is pointing

to

> > all

> > > > > > vargas -

> > > > > > > > > > > > Plural.You

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > may

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > note

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that the grammatical ending is

> > with ''E''

> > > > > > showing

> > > > > > > > > > plurals

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > too can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expressed with such an ending.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now from Vrishamsha''Ka'' and

Tulamsha

> > > > > > example we

> > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > conclude

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VargaKA and VarGA can be used for

the

> > same

> > > > > > > > purpose in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ekavachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > singular form and VargaKE and

VarGE

> > can be

> > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bahuvachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plural form.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope this may help us in

resolving

> > our

> > > > > > issue.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -

----

> > ----

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > > > > -----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

> > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message

have

> > been

> > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----

----

> > ----

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > > > > -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have

been

> > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------

----

> > ----

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > -------------

----

> > ----

> > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > -------

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

269.10.0/886 -

> > > > Release

> > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > -----------------

----

> > ----

> > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.0/886 -

> > Release

> > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

removed]

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > ---------------------

----

> > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/890 -

Release

> > > > Date:

> > > > > > 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandrashekhar ji

 

I can clearly understand your position.Especially as you have

said,the texts that we are referring to are different.Here comes the

importance of Dashadhyayi.After my explanation you can also see that

it is not only dashadhyayi ,but Saravali as well is having the same

opinion on the shloka explained below.

 

As i have mentioned yesterday,dashadhyayi is not covering just the

first 10 chapters as the name suggests.For example let me take a

chapter towards the end ,chapter 22-Sthree Jataka Adhyaya.

 

Thalakkulathu Govinda Bhattathiri has given interpretations,for all

the shlokas from 1 through 16,except shloka 13, while interpreting

chapters 1 through 10. Shloka 13 as you can see is pretty straight

forward.

 

Now let us take the shloka which as per you is referring

to ''Trimshamsha Chakra'' with aspects therein.Firstly the results

for planets being placed in rashis belonging to Mesha onwards,and

within that Trimshamshas belonging to Mars onwards is explained and

ends by shloka 6.

 

Now let us take

 

''Driksamstha VasithaSithau Parasparamshe

Shaukre Va yadi Ghata Rashi Sambhavomsha''

Next 2 lines explains the result.

 

As per you,there is only a reference regarding Venus and Saturn

aspecting each other and also in each others Amsha.This is covered

in the first line.My worry is where has the second line gone in the

text that you are having.Either it was not interpreted or it was

inadvertently got missed out from printing.

 

Now Dashadhyayi says -

 

Driksamsthau ithyadi Yoga dvayam - Two Yogas.First one is

corresponding to the first line as we have seen.

 

Shaukre Rashau Yadi Kumbhamshe Udethi ..Thatha dvitheeyam - the

second.Meaning ,The Ascendant should be either Tula or Vrishabha and

it should have Kumbhamsha(Kumbha is Ghata - Ghata Rashi

Sambhavomsha).

 

Now the author says, as per some these two can be taken as one yoga

as well(Saravali too says so).

 

Parasparamshagatha Vasitha Sithou Paraspara Drishtau Shaukre

Rashavudayathi Kumbhamshakashcha Bhavathi Yadee - then the

result.And the author says -T hatha Cha Saravalyam.And quotes

corresponding shloka from Saravali,where again the said line is

present(sanskrit).Thus it says - For a Lady to have such a strong

sexual desire - Purusha Veshadhari(One dressign up as a man -thus

lesbian),her ascendant should belong to Venus and the amsha of her

ascendant should fall in Kumbha Rashi,and in her chart Saturn and

Venus should aspect each other and also have exchange of amshas.

 

Thus you see,in either case there is a line which is missing in your

book,which helps us to understand that it is not a varga chakra.I

dont know how it happened.

 

Thus if Dashadhyayi was not there,then i would have also not got any

opportunity to understand this in such detail.This is the beauty of

this text and as you know without any value ParashnaMarga will not

praise it with such a high regard.The rest of the text is great and

explains every concept with authority,quoting many sources.

 

I consider you with great regard(Gurusthana) and holds respect

towards your views and analysis.You may kindly understand that,i

will not misquote and misrepresent,especially when the subject is

Jyotish.If some others in this list is having mistrust,they should

understand that i am not the only keralite living in this universe

and they can seek help from others to see if i am cheating.I have no

hatred towards their words.If it brings happiness to them let them

continue with false allegations.

 

I will prepare the paper and then would request your good self to

review.I am so thankful that you have tested me with tough questions

and logic,which has helped me to learn more.

 

Respect

Pradeep

 

, " vijayadas_pradeep "

<vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>

> Purna drishte Purna Yogam Ardha Drishte ardhameva cha

> Pada drishte Padayogamiti gyeyam kramat phalam.

>

> Is mentioned and hence the aspects are not about Rashi drishti.

>

> Now as i have mentioned in the past,though the name is

> dashadhyayi,the author covers shlokas,from most of the chapters as

> and when he finds some interrelationship or link.This i consider

as a

> real blessing.Now how amshakas are interpreted,has been

> demonstrated ,for numerous contexts,and thus forming a guideline

for

> other shloka interpretations.

>

> I will see the shlokas,and will write back.

>

> Respect

> Pradeep

>

> , Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > Transits are to be seen no doubt from the rasis synonymous to

the

> > navamsha rasis, but when it is sphuta it is of the navamshesha

and

> not

> > the rasis. There is a difference between the two.

> >

> > I have already said I do not consider aspects in D-charts,

unless

> > specifically mentioned in some yogas, and also that barring

> navamsha

> > charts, in other varga charts I look at rashi aspects. That does

> not

> > mean I should close my eyes to what is written in other

respected

> texts.

> > That only means I look at charts from a different angle.

> >

> > There is nothing in the lagna shadvargake shloka to indicate

graded

> > aspects and so it does not rule out rashi drishti at all. Ans

since

> you

> > have quoted both Parashara and Jaimini you should know that

rashi

> > drishtis are valid in Parashara too and exclusively so in

Jaimini.

> >

> > Your translation and mine of the shlokas differ and that is why

> there is

> > no agreement. If you expect Dashaadhyaayi to give divisional

charts

> and

> > their interpretations, that is not possible as Varaha Mihira on

> whose

> > work it is only a commentary does not speak of it and it is

> commentary

> > on only 10 of the 18 adhayaayas of Brihat jataka. If you read

> Brihat

> > jataka carefully, you will see reference o aspects in

Trimshamsha

> there.

> > Since you have many times claimed superiority of Dashaadhyaayi

over

> many

> > of the more ancient and respected classics, I find it strange as

to

> why

> > you do not want to accept what is said in the original text on

> which

> > Dashaadhyaayi is only a commentary and that too on 10 adhyaayas

as

> the

> > name suggests (that does not, of course, make it any less

> respectable).

> > There are many references to planets being placed in a navamsha,

> which

> > is not identical with the rasi whose name the navamsha enjoys,

and

> the

> > results from them in the 21st adhyaaya. How do you map back such

a

> > navamsha to the rasi and what should be the logic? You also see

> > reference to Guru occupying own Trimshamsha, irrespective of

rasi

> in the

> > same adhayaaya. There are too many references like this to

question

> the

> > theory that the amshas need always be mapped back to identical

rasi

> in

> > rasi chart.

> >

> > Could you tell why this reluctance to accept Varaha Mihira?

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > Meshamshe, Vrishamshe Transit results can be seen from Mesha

and

> > > Vrishabha rashis.Thus you are aware of what i am

saying.Moreover

> we

> > > have seen paparkshe.we have seen meshadi rashige swamshe.we

have

> seen

> > > that bhrigwonkaraka varge ,as per your understanding cannot

> satisfy

> > > both mars and venus.The very next shloka is talking about mars

and

> > > venus yuti or aspecting.

> > >

> > > Now we can forget all these as you are not williing to accept

> > > rashi,riksha etc as valid reasoning.

> > >

> > > We have seen Lagna shadvargake shloka with aspectual

> grades,proving

> > > that they ae not rashi drishtis.Couple of days back and many

> times in

> > > the past,i have heard from you that you don't support aspects

in

> > > Vargas.

> > >

> > > If you still have the sam views,then to understand shadvargake

> > > shloka,we have to see planets aspecting lagna in ''six

charts''.As

> > > lagna can fall in any rashi,you have to accept aspects fully

in

> all

> > > Varga charts.

> > >

> > > This is relevant to our discussion as lagnamsha is also part of

> > > shadvargas of lagna.

> > >

> > > As you are aware ,the BPHS translator too has expressed his

> concern.

> > >

> > > Regds

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > >

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > How could I think shadvarga of lagna is shadvarga of rashi?

> Lagna

> > > is the

> > > > point on the eastern horizon at the time of birth of a

jataka.

> > > >

> > > > There is no dispute about what is lagnamsha and what is

> karakamsha

> > > at

> > > > all. At the same time when reference is to a graha falling in

> > > Lagnamsha

> > > > it refers to the navamsha rasi (or sector ruled by one of

the

> rasis

> > > of a

> > > > planet, barring Sun and Chandra if you like it that way) in

> which

> > > the

> > > > lagnamsha falls. Now that being so where is the shubha graha

> > > supposed to

> > > > fall in the shloka I quoted? Same with the Shubh graha in

> > > Karakamsha and

> > > > needing drishti of shubha graha on it. It is easy to say that

> > > these

> > > > need to be seen in rasi, but for lack of the reference to

rasi,

> > > there,

> > > > there is no reason to assume that it does not refer to

navamsha

> > > rasi.

> > > > The reference to grahas in " Meshaamshe " , " Vrishabhaamshe "

etc

> are

> > > quite

> > > > clear, in BPHS.

> > > >

> > > > Take care,

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > >

> > > > > Of course Yes,you are correct.Varga is found for this

bindu

> and in

> > > > > the case of planets their degree decides.The rest you have

> stated

> > > is

> > > > > also as per definition.My point was made under the

impression

> that

> > > > > you have a view that,shadvarga of Lagna is shadvarga of a

> > > rashi.If so

> > > > > it is not.Shad varga is found for Lagna bindu.

> > > > >

> > > > > The full Rashi/Kshethra in which Lagna bindu falls becomes

its

> > > first

> > > > > Varga.

> > > > >

> > > > > The Translation is entiterely correct and no one can

> > > contradict.This

> > > > > is similar to one planet aspecting shadvargas of lagna.

> > > > >

> > > > > Lagnamsha is already covered in the shadvargas of

> > > lagna.Karakamsha is

> > > > > similar too.

> > > > >

> > > > > Now let us see it on a chart.Karkamasha is in

Dhanu.Jupiter is

> > > placed

> > > > > in Mithuna Rashi.Shubha graha is aspecting Karakamsha Lagna

> > > > > (Rashi).Similarly Lagnamsha.

> > > > >

> > > > > You are already aware of the rules for aspects.

> > > > >

> > > > > Respect

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I see your point of view. anyway even within shadvargas

we

> look

> > > for

> > > > > the

> > > > > > degree of a planet falling within a certain span of

degrees

> and

> > > not

> > > > > one

> > > > > > particular bindu.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I agree that rashi is a Varga and my question is if one

can

> > > look at

> > > > > > aspects in one Varga why not in other Vargas? I am sure

you

> know

> > > > > that

> > > > > > personally I use navamsha to find only the strength of

> grahas,

> > > but

> > > > > there

> > > > > > is no reason to rule out aspects in Navamshas or other

> charts

> > > > > totally.

> > > > > > One of the raj yogas mentioned by Parashara talks of

aspect

> of

> > > > > shubha

> > > > > > grahas on the karakamsha and Lagnamsha which should also

be

> > > > > tenanted by

> > > > > > Shubha grahas, leaving no doubt as to where the aspects

are

> to

> > > be

> > > > > seen.

> > > > > > And for the record the translation to that effect is by

an

> > > eminent

> > > > > > astrologer who was Professor of astrology in Banaras

Hindu

> > > > > University.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Lagna as a bindu was mentioned for driving home the

> shadvarga

> > > > > > > calculations,if any members were having doubts.For

> shadvarga

> > > > > > > calculation of planets too we need the bindu or degree

of

> a

> > > planet

> > > > > > > within a rashi, as you are aware.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > We have to look at Rashis.This is so because Rashi

(one 30

> > > degree

> > > > > > > sector ) is the first varga.As this Varga is

synonymous

> with

> > > Bhava

> > > > > > > houses are analysed w.r to Rashis.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > If lagna is a bindu a you propose, and nothing more,

> then

> > > how

> > > > > can

> > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > indicate an entire rasi? Now if this is correct, and

> > > technically

> > > > > > > it is,

> > > > > > > > then by your reckoning there is no need to look at

rasis

> > > too. Is

> > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > what you mean to say?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > If shadvargas are not related to the portion falling

in

> the

> > > > > lagna

> > > > > > > rasis,

> > > > > > > > which holds the degree of lagna Madhya, then it

appears

> we

> > > must

> > > > > ask

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > sages to redefine Vargas. I doubt they need our

advise.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > There was a purpose.I just wanted to explain it to

the

> > > > > members if

> > > > > > > > > some of them are not sure on what shadvarga of

lagna

> is

> > > and

> > > > > how it

> > > > > > > > > is calculated.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > As you have said Vargas are divisions of a

rashi.But

> > > > > shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > Lagna is not the Vargas falling in Lagna.Here

lagna is

> > > not a

> > > > > > > > > rashi,but a bindu.Vargas are found from a

degree.The

> > > degree

> > > > > of a

> > > > > > > > > planet or degree of lagna.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > As you may know we do notneed six charts to

dtermine

> > > > > shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > lagna.All we need is the degree of lagna and the

rashi

> > > rising.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Let us take an example.Lagna is at 11 degrees in

> dhanu.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Let us find the shadvargas of Lagna with th help

of

> rising

> > > > > rashi

> > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > degree.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > 1st Varga - The Rashi in which Lagna bindu is

> falling -

> > > Dhanu

> > > > > > > > > 2nd Varga - The Hora in which Lagna bindu is

falling -

> As

> > > 11

> > > > > > > degrees

> > > > > > > > > falls in the 1st half of dhanu - Surya Hora

> > > > > > > > > 3rd Varga - The drekkana in which Lagna bindu is

> falling -

> > > As

> > > > > 11

> > > > > > > > > degrees falls in the 2nd 1/3rd of dhanu - Drekkana

is

> > > Mesha.

> > > > > > > > > 4th Varga - As 11 degrees falls in the 3rd

> > > saptamsha ,Lagna

> > > > > > > saptamsha

> > > > > > > > > is Kumbha.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Similraly - Lagna navamsha is Karka,Lagna

Trimshamsha

> is

> > > > > dhanu.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Thus the purpose of whole exercise was to say that

> when

> > > we say

> > > > > > > > > shadvargas of Lagna or Mars,it does not mean the

> rashis

> > > owned

> > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > Lagna or Mars.But the Rashis on towhich they are

> > > placed,having

> > > > > > > > > hora,drekkana etc etc.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Vargas of Mars in the 2nd Rashi from karakamsha

too

> is no

> > > > > > > differet.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > There are many meanings,that is why Rashi is

called as

> > > > > > > > > Kshethra /Riksha /havana etc.But i don't think

sage

> will

> > > use

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > saword to represent something belonging to same

class.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > For example sage will not use ''sva'' to mean 2nd

as

> well

> > > as

> > > > > > > 3rd.Then

> > > > > > > > > we cannot interpret.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Similarly Rashi and navamsha will not be

represented

> > > using the

> > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > word.Rashi/Kshethra/Riksha/Bhvana/Lagna etc are

> synonyms

> > > an

> > > > > ifthey

> > > > > > > > > are used for navamsha then what is the whole

purpose

> > > behind

> > > > > > > defintion.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > On the other hand sva was used for iems from

different

> > > > > classes.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > This wasin mind while making such a statement.I

will

> try

> > > my

> > > > > best

> > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > polish my style of writing.I accept my limitations

in

> > > writing.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I have not understood your question or the

intent

> behind

> > > > > that.

> > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > Vargas are divisions, within a rasi, ruled by

> different

> > > > > grahas.

> > > > > > > So

> > > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > one wants t look at Vargas falling in lagna the

shad

> > > Vargas

> > > > > will

> > > > > > > > > mean

> > > > > > > > > > the rasi equivalent occurring at lagna position

in

> the 6

> > > > > > > divisional

> > > > > > > > > > charts of Rashi, Hora, Dreshkana, Navamsha,

> > > Dwaadashamsha

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > Trimshamsha. Or at least this is what I have

learnt.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Sages did not use words in vain or context. I

> agree. But

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > mean they used the words to mean only one thing

> always.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I never said that the meaning can be changed to

> suit our

> > > > > > > > > convenience and

> > > > > > > > > > I would request you not to attribute such

> sentiments to

> > > me.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > However I do say that word are used in different

> > > contexts to

> > > > > > > mean

> > > > > > > > > > different things, especially in Sanskrit texts of

> > > Jyotish. I

> > > > > > > have,

> > > > > > > > > just

> > > > > > > > > > a few minutes back use of " Sva " with different

> meaning

> > > at

> > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > places by Varaha Mihira to you. I hope you do

not

> also

> > > > > attribute

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > words that you attributed to me to the venerated

> Varaha

> > > > > Mihira.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar,.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Pls tell me what you mean by shadvargas of

> lagna.How

> > > do

> > > > > you

> > > > > > > find

> > > > > > > > > > > them.Do you go by ownership or placement

> > > > > > > > > (Rashi/navamsha/dwadshamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > etc).

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > There are shlokas in Varahamihiras text which

> > > > > says ,Okarkshe

> > > > > > > > > > > Purushamshakae.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Which means in Ojarashi and Oja amsha.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > As per me sages will not use any words out of

> > > context.If

> > > > > he

> > > > > > > wants

> > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > say amsha he will mention it.He will not use

> Rashi to

> > > > > mean as

> > > > > > > > > amsha.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Ojarkshe is Oja Rashi.Similarly Paparkshe is

Papa

> > > Rashi.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > If you want to say as per our conveninece we

can

> > > change

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > > > > > of riksha/rashi/bhavana/bhavas as navamsha

then i

> > > cannot

> > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > > anything.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I can only respect your views.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I will tell you why that happens. You begin

with

> > > quoting

> > > > > > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > then give a sutra from Jaimini as being said

by

> > > > > Parashara.

> > > > > > > > > > > > Interpretation of sutras is not the easiest

of

> the

> > > > > things,

> > > > > > > more

> > > > > > > > > so

> > > > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > Jaimini's Upadesha sutras. That the sutras

use

> > > > > KaTaPaYaadi

> > > > > > > > > > > encryption

> > > > > > > > > > > > makes them even more difficult to interpret.

I

> am

> > > sure

> > > > > you

> > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > noticed

> > > > > > > > > > > > this when Sreenadh interpreted the

KaTaPaYaadi

> > > Varga in

> > > > > a

> > > > > > > wrong

> > > > > > > > > > > fashion.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Then there is your insistence to let Sanskrit

> > > grammar

> > > > > give

> > > > > > > a go

> > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > > that can make interpretation of a shloka or

> sutra

> > > fit

> > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > proposition.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Any of the Shodasha Vargas of a rasi can be

> > > referred to

> > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > Varga,

> > > > > > > > > > > but as

> > > > > > > > > > > > far as I know in astrology, when one talks

of

> Varga,

> > > > > without

> > > > > > > > > > > qualifying

> > > > > > > > > > > > it, or Amshas that generally refers to

navamsha

> or

> > > > > > > > > Dwadashaamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Another reason that we can not agree, or

seem to

> > > agree,

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > you are

> > > > > > > > > > > > reluctant to call a navamsha by the

nomenclature

> > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > rasi.

> > > > > > > > > > > This

> > > > > > > > > > > > makes it difficult to convey what I mean to

say

> in

> > > > > English

> > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > the language of the net and which both of us

> know.

> > > Now

> > > > > > > since you

> > > > > > > > > > > do not

> > > > > > > > > > > > want to use the word Mesha navamsha as Mesha

is

> a

> > > rashi

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > logic it can not be a navamsha, it becomes

> > > difficult to

> > > > > > > convey

> > > > > > > > > > > what I

> > > > > > > > > > > > understand by the texts.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I will like to draw your attention to the

> literal

> > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > > > > rasi. It means a heap and nothing more. In

> astrology

> > > > > since

> > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > > > encompasses many stars that make up a

nakshatra

> the

> > > > > 1/12th

> > > > > > > > > > > division of

> > > > > > > > > > > > the zodiac is called a Rasi. Or at least

this

> is my

> > > > > > > > > understanding

> > > > > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > > reason of using the word rasi for the 1/12th

> > > division

> > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > zodiac.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I do not agree that by Chandra in Guru Varga

it

> is

> > > meant

> > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > Varga of

> > > > > > > > > > > > Chandra is being seen. To me we are talking

> about is

> > > > > whether

> > > > > > > > > > > Chandra is

> > > > > > > > > > > > falling in the Varga of Guru in which ever

rasi

> he

> > > is

> > > > > > > occupying.

> > > > > > > > > > > So in

> > > > > > > > > > > > Navamsha we see whether Chandra is occupying

> Pisces

> > > or

> > > > > > > > > Sagittarius

> > > > > > > > > > > > navamsha. I also do not agree that there are

> Vargas

> > > of

> > > > > > > Chandra

> > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > of any

> > > > > > > > > > > > planet for that matter. The 16 Vargas that

> Parashara

> > > > > talks

> > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > that of a Rasi, beginning from the Rashi

itself.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > If the Vargas are not owned by different

> planets,

> > > pray

> > > > > why

> > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > > the sage

> > > > > > > > > > > > tell us to see occupation of a friend, own

etc.

> > > Varga to

> > > > > > > assess

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > strength of a planet in the Varga concerned?

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I have interacted with many astrologers of

> > > yesteryears

> > > > > (with

> > > > > > > > > > > respect to

> > > > > > > > > > > > my age group) and have never found them

> claiming the

> > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > only lagna and planets.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > If you insist that sage Parashara gave the

SU.

> 52.-

> > > > > " Tatra

> > > > > > > > > > > bhrigwongaraka

> > > > > > > > > > > > varge paradarikaha " , perhaps you are

referring

> to

> > > some

> > > > > > > edition

> > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > BPHS

> > > > > > > > > > > > that I do not have. However I do have that

in

> the

> > > > > umpteen

> > > > > > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > > > texts on Jaimini that I do have in my

library.

> And

> > > by

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > way,

> > > > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > > scholars have interpreted that to mean 9th

from

> > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > the 2nd.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I do not agree that a graha can

simultaneously

> > > occupy

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars, simultaneously, as is being

> > > suggested

> > > > > > > whether in

> > > > > > > > > > > rasi or

> > > > > > > > > > > > in any of the Vargas. It could only occupy

one

> or

> > > the

> > > > > other.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I have seen you arguing in favor of looking

at

> the

> > > > > > > Shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > grahas Venus and Mars. I would like you to

look

> at

> > > all

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > six

> > > > > > > > > > > charts

> > > > > > > > > > > > whose Vargas together are referred as

> Shadvargas and

> > > > > try to

> > > > > > > find

> > > > > > > > > > > out

> > > > > > > > > > > > whether they do indeed contain the 6 Vargas

of

> Venus

> > > > > and 6

> > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > Mars. I am sure that you will find them to

> contain

> > > only

> > > > > 5

> > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > each of

> > > > > > > > > > > > the grahas. Once you confirm this by looking

at

> the

> > > 6

> > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > self,

> > > > > > > > > > > > tell me how one can look at Shadvargas of

Venus

> or

> > > Mars

> > > > > as

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > > > suggested to be the interpretation of the

sutra

> that

> > > > > you are

> > > > > > > > > > > referring to.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > You may also be interested to know that

> Parashara

> > > talks

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > AK

> > > > > > > > > > > falling in

> > > > > > > > > > > > the Varga of Chandra, Mars or Venus also

having

> the

> > > > > roving

> > > > > > > eye

> > > > > > > > > on

> > > > > > > > > > > others

> > > > > > > > > > > > wives. So the combination of Venus and Mars

> being

> > > the

> > > > > only

> > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > giving

> > > > > > > > > > > > the roving eye for other's wives, that you

are

> > > > > advancing as

> > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > standalone

> > > > > > > > > > > > principle, may not, necessarily, be the way

the

> sage

> > > > > looked

> > > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > > > > their

> > > > > > > > > > > > interpretation.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Those were written by me.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I am very dissappointed to see

that ,inspite

> of

> > > > > repeating

> > > > > > > > > numerus

> > > > > > > > > > > > > times,you are unable to get what i am

saying.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not talking about rashis lorded by

> shukra or

> > > Mars

> > > > > > > here.I

> > > > > > > > > am

> > > > > > > > > > > > > talking about the shadvargas vargas of

mars

> and

> > > > > shukra.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pls tell me what is the meaning of

shadvargas

> or

> > > > > simply

> > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > lagna.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the rashi in which lagna is

placed.The

> > > > > navamshaka of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna,Trimshamshaka of Lagna etc.Can we

see

> any

> > > > > lordship

> > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > say.Lagna does not own any rashi.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly when we say vargas of Venus -It

> means

> > > Rashi

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

Venus,Hora,navamshaka,drekkana,trimshamshaka

> etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Shadvarga is never the rashi owned by a

> > > planet.Then

> > > > > Lagna

> > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > never

> > > > > > > > > > > > > have shadvarga.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say,Chandra in Guru

> > > Varga - We

> > > > > > > are not

> > > > > > > > > > > seeing

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the shadvarga of Guru,but that of

chandra.Is

> > > chandra

> > > > > > > placed in

> > > > > > > > > > > Guru

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Rashi?Is Chandra navamshaka in Guru

Rashi.Is

> > > Chandra

> > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamshaka in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Guru Rashi etc is what we check.If so

chandras

> > > vargas

> > > > > > > fall in

> > > > > > > > > > > guru

> > > > > > > > > > > > > rashis or we say chandra is in guruvargas.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > For the same reason schoplars of

yesteryears

> > > always

> > > > > say

> > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > for our natal Lagna and Planets.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand you are taking them as

> owned by

> > > a

> > > > > > > > > planet.Every

> > > > > > > > > > > > > shadvarga that derive is like that.You may

> check

> > > this

> > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > shri

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Narasimha,how he is deriving it for his

> software.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > For the same reason Bhrigu and Angara can

have

> > > Varga

> > > > > > > together

> > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Rashi which is 2nd from Karakamsha.Sage

> clearly

> > > talks

> > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > vargas from both.Moreover the next shloka

is

> > > talking

> > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus together or aspecting the 2nd from

> > > karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we go by your

> explanation,we

> > > > > have to

> > > > > > > opt

> > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > just one among shukra or Mars which is not

> > > > > proper.Their

> > > > > > > Joint

> > > > > > > > > > > > > influence creates sexual drive.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I request you to kindly read this with

care.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Rspect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The below remarks are not from my mail

at

> all.

> > > I do

> > > > > not

> > > > > > > know

> > > > > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > think I would write that. I am sure you

know

> > > that

> > > > > this

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > my

> > > > > > > > > > > > > style

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of writing at all.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > " >From my experience -Mars + Venus

creates

> > > certin

> > > > > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why are

you

> > > going

> > > > > for

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > owned by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > just one of them and that too without a

> > > planetary

> > > > > link

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > really

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > worrying me.Shri Rath has translated so,i

> > > agree.But

> > > > > i

> > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will

definitely

> > > correct

> > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > benfit

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of jyotish community. "

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > As to why I said they could not be

having

> their

> > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > together in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi or Bhava does not need any deeper

> > > explanation.

> > > > > If

> > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > looking

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > at the 2nd from Karakamsha in the rasi

> chart,

> > > as you

> > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > right, you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > could not have both Mesha and Vrishabha

or

> Tula

> > > and

> > > > > > > > > Vrishchika

> > > > > > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd from the Karakamsha, is that not so?

> > > Similarly

> > > > > if in

> > > > > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > chart

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the 2nd from Karakamsha is to be seen,

the

> 2nd

> > > > > could be

> > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > > > navamshas.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I though you meant so.Because in

> subsequent

> > > lines

> > > > > we

> > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > see

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and Karakamsha being used for the same

> > > > > purpose.But if

> > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there are other places where swamsha

is

> used

> > > for

> > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagnamsha ,then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i can trust you if you can point me to

> that.

> > > This

> > > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > be a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problem and in no way it will affect

us.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars can ofcourse have their

> Vargas

> > > in a

> > > > > > > single

> > > > > > > > > > > rashi or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bhava.Venus can have navamsha

there,Mars

> can

> > > have

> > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there,Venus can have Trimshamsha

> there,Mars

> > > can

> > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there,they both can have drekkana

there

> etc

> > > etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus sage is talking about Bhrigu and

> Angara

> > > both

> > > > > (as

> > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > identified gramattically) having varga

> there

> > > and

> > > > > it is

> > > > > > > > > very

> > > > > > > > > > > much

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you note the next line -Sage is

talking

> > > about

> > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > Venus

> > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > joining or aspecting the 2nd from

> Karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From my experience -Mars + Venus

creates

> > > certin

> > > > > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why

are

> you

> > > going

> > > > > for

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > owned by just one of them and that too

> > > without a

> > > > > > > planetary

> > > > > > > > > > > link is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really worrying me.Shri Rath has

> translated

> > > so,i

> > > > > > > > > agree.But i

> > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will

> definitely

> > > > > correct

> > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > > for the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > benfit of jyotish community.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am surprised as to why you say

so.That

> they

> > > > > cannot

> > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > together.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pardeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

40>,

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have never said that I do not

think

> that

> > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different where the context demands

so.

> At

> > > the

> > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > time I

> > > > > > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammar can be put to rest to in the

> name of

> > > > > > > context,

> > > > > > > > > > > without

> > > > > > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sound

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course if you want contextual

> translation

> > > > > only,

> > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > one can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > certainly say that the " Meshadi

raashige

> > > > > swaamshe "

> > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > always be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > translated as " Falling in Mesha

> navamsha in

> > > > > Mesha

> > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > > > etc. " .

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way " Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka

> Varge " ,

> > > that

> > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > mention, does

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean varga of both Venus and mars,

but

> of

> > > varga

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > Venus OR

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > due to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the grammar only. varga of two

planets

> can

> > > not

> > > > > fall

> > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bhava/amsha/rasi whether in rasi or

> > > Navamsha or

> > > > > any

> > > > > > > > > other

> > > > > > > > > > > chart.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Grammatically,what you are saying

is

> also

> > > > > true.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But Jyotish defintions play a

> preceding

> > > role

> > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > choosing

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammatical meaning.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example one meaning of

> labhe ,Swamshe

> > > etc

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > 11th

> > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But if we go by that we will

> definitely

> > > > > translate

> > > > > > > > > > > swamshe in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > meshadi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashige as ''in Swamsha'',thereby

> > > translating

> > > > > it

> > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > full

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart.This as you too agree,then

> cannot

> > > pass

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > test,of

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > subsequent shlokas.I understand

gladly

> > > that

> > > > > you

> > > > > > > too

> > > > > > > > > > > agree that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha and karakamsha are the

same.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So the context decides

plural/singular

> > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > necessarily

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the ''E''

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as you have rightly mentioned.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But in essence what i want to say

> is ''E''

> > > > > does

> > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > always

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean ''in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the'' as you have

> interpreted.Labheshe is

> > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > example.Karake

> > > > > > > > > > > > > is an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus it can very well mean Varga of

> > > Shukra and

> > > > > > > Mars-

> > > > > > > > > > > which can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > six vargas or one varga.(Not

lordship)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra -(There) In the second from

> > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga or Vargas of Venus and Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now why should we need two

> qualifiesrs for

> > > > > > > destination

> > > > > > > > > (1)

> > > > > > > > > > > In

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from karakamsha 2)in the vargas

of?)-

> if

> > > we had

> > > > > > > another

> > > > > > > > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your interpretation is right.That

> planet

> > > will

> > > > > > > answer

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > question -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who is in the vargas of ?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly - Swamshad dhane Shukrar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Swamshad dhane is already pointing

to

> > > > > destination-

> > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > need

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > another ''in the'' vargas of.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say in the

2nd

> > > from

> > > > > > > > > karakamsha if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mars and venus are present,it fits

in

> > > > > > > > > > > grammatically.Moreover

> > > > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i had

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentioned rashi lordship without

> planetary

> > > > > link

> > > > > > > > > > > > > (placement/amsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is too general.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In

 

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> 40>,

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I may be wrong but the " E " by

itself

> > > does

> > > > > not

> > > > > > > point

> > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > word Shadvarga indicating 6

Vargas

> that

> > > is

> > > > > one

> > > > > > > group

> > > > > > > > > > > > > (though it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more than one unit) and

so " Varge " ,

> the

> > > > > > > singular is

> > > > > > > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " E " means " in " . I would be happy

if

> an

> > > > > example

> > > > > > > > > > > of " Varge "

> > > > > > > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plural

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can be given.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not at all think that

Vargaka

> or

> > > Varga

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > singular and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargake

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge is plural, at all. Both the

> > > manner of

> > > > > > > using

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > indicates singular. it is no use

> > > projecting

> > > > > > > what is

> > > > > > > > > > > clearly

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saptami

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vibhakti and singular as being a

> plural

> > > > > word. If

> > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > to be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dvivachana it may

become " VargyoH "

> > > > > or " VargeSu "

> > > > > > > (for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bahuvachan)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge. Perhaps some Sanskrit

> scholar on

> > > the

> > > > > list

> > > > > > > > > would

> > > > > > > > > > > like

> > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > comment

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on this.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, much as I would like it to

> resolve,

> > > the

> > > > > > > issue

> > > > > > > > > > > remains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unresolved.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will give you a relevant

> example to

> > > > > explain

> > > > > > > how

> > > > > > > > > > > VarGE

> > > > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > context of plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna Shad-VargaKE - Is

pointing

> to

> > > all

> > > > > > > vargas -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Plural.You

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > may

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > note

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that the grammatical ending is

> > > with ''E''

> > > > > > > showing

> > > > > > > > > > > plurals

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expressed with such an ending.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now from Vrishamsha''Ka'' and

> Tulamsha

> > > > > > > example we

> > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > conclude

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VargaKA and VarGA can be used

for

> the

> > > same

> > > > > > > > > purpose in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ekavachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > singular form and VargaKE and

> VarGE

> > > can be

> > > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bahuvachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plural form.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope this may help us in

> resolving

> > > our

> > > > > > > issue.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------

---

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > > > > > -----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

> > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus

Database:

> > > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this

message

> have

> > > been

> > > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --

---

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > > > > > -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

> message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message

have

> been

> > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

---

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have

been

> > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------

---

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > -------

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > --------------

---

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

269.10.0/886 -

> > > Release

> > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > ------------------

---

> ----

> > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/890 -

> Release

> > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeep,

 

Do you mean to say that Parashara says that in connection with

Meshaamshe etc.? I doubt that shloka exists in the karakamsha adhyaaya,

but of course, I could be wrong.

 

I asked you whether you accept the rashi drishtis that are mentioned by

Parashara and Jaimini or not? If Dashaaadhyaayi interprets the shlokas

on navamsha and Trimshamshas from Brihat Jataka, why not give what it says?

 

You have given your interpretation of how amshakas should be

interpreted, but failed to address the queries. May I know why?

 

Chandrashekhar.

 

 

 

vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>

> Purna drishte Purna Yogam Ardha Drishte ardhameva cha

> Pada drishte Padayogamiti gyeyam kramat phalam.

>

> Is mentioned and hence the aspects are not about Rashi drishti.

>

> Now as i have mentioned in the past,though the name is

> dashadhyayi,the author covers shlokas,from most of the chapters as

> and when he finds some interrelationship or link.This i consider as a

> real blessing.Now how amshakas are interpreted,has been

> demonstrated ,for numerous contexts,and thus forming a guideline for

> other shloka interpretations.

>

> I will see the shlokas,and will write back.

>

> Respect

> Pradeep

>

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > Transits are to be seen no doubt from the rasis synonymous to the

> > navamsha rasis, but when it is sphuta it is of the navamshesha and

> not

> > the rasis. There is a difference between the two.

> >

> > I have already said I do not consider aspects in D-charts, unless

> > specifically mentioned in some yogas, and also that barring

> navamsha

> > charts, in other varga charts I look at rashi aspects. That does

> not

> > mean I should close my eyes to what is written in other respected

> texts.

> > That only means I look at charts from a different angle.

> >

> > There is nothing in the lagna shadvargake shloka to indicate graded

> > aspects and so it does not rule out rashi drishti at all. Ans since

> you

> > have quoted both Parashara and Jaimini you should know that rashi

> > drishtis are valid in Parashara too and exclusively so in Jaimini.

> >

> > Your translation and mine of the shlokas differ and that is why

> there is

> > no agreement. If you expect Dashaadhyaayi to give divisional charts

> and

> > their interpretations, that is not possible as Varaha Mihira on

> whose

> > work it is only a commentary does not speak of it and it is

> commentary

> > on only 10 of the 18 adhayaayas of Brihat jataka. If you read

> Brihat

> > jataka carefully, you will see reference o aspects in Trimshamsha

> there.

> > Since you have many times claimed superiority of Dashaadhyaayi over

> many

> > of the more ancient and respected classics, I find it strange as to

> why

> > you do not want to accept what is said in the original text on

> which

> > Dashaadhyaayi is only a commentary and that too on 10 adhyaayas as

> the

> > name suggests (that does not, of course, make it any less

> respectable).

> > There are many references to planets being placed in a navamsha,

> which

> > is not identical with the rasi whose name the navamsha enjoys, and

> the

> > results from them in the 21st adhyaaya. How do you map back such a

> > navamsha to the rasi and what should be the logic? You also see

> > reference to Guru occupying own Trimshamsha, irrespective of rasi

> in the

> > same adhayaaya. There are too many references like this to question

> the

> > theory that the amshas need always be mapped back to identical rasi

> in

> > rasi chart.

> >

> > Could you tell why this reluctance to accept Varaha Mihira?

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > Meshamshe, Vrishamshe Transit results can be seen from Mesha and

> > > Vrishabha rashis.Thus you are aware of what i am saying.Moreover

> we

> > > have seen paparkshe.we have seen meshadi rashige swamshe.we have

> seen

> > > that bhrigwonkaraka varge ,as per your understanding cannot

> satisfy

> > > both mars and venus.The very next shloka is talking about mars and

> > > venus yuti or aspecting.

> > >

> > > Now we can forget all these as you are not williing to accept

> > > rashi,riksha etc as valid reasoning.

> > >

> > > We have seen Lagna shadvargake shloka with aspectual

> grades,proving

> > > that they ae not rashi drishtis.Couple of days back and many

> times in

> > > the past,i have heard from you that you don't support aspects in

> > > Vargas.

> > >

> > > If you still have the sam views,then to understand shadvargake

> > > shloka,we have to see planets aspecting lagna in ''six charts''.As

> > > lagna can fall in any rashi,you have to accept aspects fully in

> all

> > > Varga charts.

> > >

> > > This is relevant to our discussion as lagnamsha is also part of

> > > shadvargas of lagna.

> > >

> > > As you are aware ,the BPHS translator too has expressed his

> concern.

> > >

> > > Regds

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > How could I think shadvarga of lagna is shadvarga of rashi?

> Lagna

> > > is the

> > > > point on the eastern horizon at the time of birth of a jataka.

> > > >

> > > > There is no dispute about what is lagnamsha and what is

> karakamsha

> > > at

> > > > all. At the same time when reference is to a graha falling in

> > > Lagnamsha

> > > > it refers to the navamsha rasi (or sector ruled by one of the

> rasis

> > > of a

> > > > planet, barring Sun and Chandra if you like it that way) in

> which

> > > the

> > > > lagnamsha falls. Now that being so where is the shubha graha

> > > supposed to

> > > > fall in the shloka I quoted? Same with the Shubh graha in

> > > Karakamsha and

> > > > needing drishti of shubha graha on it. It is easy to say that

> > > these

> > > > need to be seen in rasi, but for lack of the reference to rasi,

> > > there,

> > > > there is no reason to assume that it does not refer to navamsha

> > > rasi.

> > > > The reference to grahas in " Meshaamshe " , " Vrishabhaamshe " etc

> are

> > > quite

> > > > clear, in BPHS.

> > > >

> > > > Take care,

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > >

> > > > > Of course Yes,you are correct.Varga is found for this bindu

> and in

> > > > > the case of planets their degree decides.The rest you have

> stated

> > > is

> > > > > also as per definition.My point was made under the impression

> that

> > > > > you have a view that,shadvarga of Lagna is shadvarga of a

> > > rashi.If so

> > > > > it is not.Shad varga is found for Lagna bindu.

> > > > >

> > > > > The full Rashi/Kshethra in which Lagna bindu falls becomes its

> > > first

> > > > > Varga.

> > > > >

> > > > > The Translation is entiterely correct and no one can

> > > contradict.This

> > > > > is similar to one planet aspecting shadvargas of lagna.

> > > > >

> > > > > Lagnamsha is already covered in the shadvargas of

> > > lagna.Karakamsha is

> > > > > similar too.

> > > > >

> > > > > Now let us see it on a chart.Karkamasha is in Dhanu.Jupiter is

> > > placed

> > > > > in Mithuna Rashi.Shubha graha is aspecting Karakamsha Lagna

> > > > > (Rashi).Similarly Lagnamsha.

> > > > >

> > > > > You are already aware of the rules for aspects.

> > > > >

> > > > > Respect

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I see your point of view. anyway even within shadvargas we

> look

> > > for

> > > > > the

> > > > > > degree of a planet falling within a certain span of degrees

> and

> > > not

> > > > > one

> > > > > > particular bindu.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I agree that rashi is a Varga and my question is if one can

> > > look at

> > > > > > aspects in one Varga why not in other Vargas? I am sure you

> know

> > > > > that

> > > > > > personally I use navamsha to find only the strength of

> grahas,

> > > but

> > > > > there

> > > > > > is no reason to rule out aspects in Navamshas or other

> charts

> > > > > totally.

> > > > > > One of the raj yogas mentioned by Parashara talks of aspect

> of

> > > > > shubha

> > > > > > grahas on the karakamsha and Lagnamsha which should also be

> > > > > tenanted by

> > > > > > Shubha grahas, leaving no doubt as to where the aspects are

> to

> > > be

> > > > > seen.

> > > > > > And for the record the translation to that effect is by an

> > > eminent

> > > > > > astrologer who was Professor of astrology in Banaras Hindu

> > > > > University.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Lagna as a bindu was mentioned for driving home the

> shadvarga

> > > > > > > calculations,if any members were having doubts.For

> shadvarga

> > > > > > > calculation of planets too we need the bindu or degree of

> a

> > > planet

> > > > > > > within a rashi, as you are aware.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > We have to look at Rashis.This is so because Rashi (one 30

> > > degree

> > > > > > > sector ) is the first varga.As this Varga is synonymous

> with

> > > Bhava

> > > > > > > houses are analysed w.r to Rashis.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > If lagna is a bindu a you propose, and nothing more,

> then

> > > how

> > > > > can

> > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > indicate an entire rasi? Now if this is correct, and

> > > technically

> > > > > > > it is,

> > > > > > > > then by your reckoning there is no need to look at rasis

> > > too. Is

> > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > what you mean to say?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > If shadvargas are not related to the portion falling in

> the

> > > > > lagna

> > > > > > > rasis,

> > > > > > > > which holds the degree of lagna Madhya, then it appears

> we

> > > must

> > > > > ask

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > sages to redefine Vargas. I doubt they need our advise.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > There was a purpose.I just wanted to explain it to the

> > > > > members if

> > > > > > > > > some of them are not sure on what shadvarga of lagna

> is

> > > and

> > > > > how it

> > > > > > > > > is calculated.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > As you have said Vargas are divisions of a rashi.But

> > > > > shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > Lagna is not the Vargas falling in Lagna.Here lagna is

> > > not a

> > > > > > > > > rashi,but a bindu.Vargas are found from a degree.The

> > > degree

> > > > > of a

> > > > > > > > > planet or degree of lagna.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > As you may know we do notneed six charts to dtermine

> > > > > shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > lagna.All we need is the degree of lagna and the rashi

> > > rising.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Let us take an example.Lagna is at 11 degrees in

> dhanu.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Let us find the shadvargas of Lagna with th help of

> rising

> > > > > rashi

> > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > degree.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > 1st Varga - The Rashi in which Lagna bindu is

> falling -

> > > Dhanu

> > > > > > > > > 2nd Varga - The Hora in which Lagna bindu is falling -

> As

> > > 11

> > > > > > > degrees

> > > > > > > > > falls in the 1st half of dhanu - Surya Hora

> > > > > > > > > 3rd Varga - The drekkana in which Lagna bindu is

> falling -

> > > As

> > > > > 11

> > > > > > > > > degrees falls in the 2nd 1/3rd of dhanu - Drekkana is

> > > Mesha.

> > > > > > > > > 4th Varga - As 11 degrees falls in the 3rd

> > > saptamsha ,Lagna

> > > > > > > saptamsha

> > > > > > > > > is Kumbha.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Similraly - Lagna navamsha is Karka,Lagna Trimshamsha

> is

> > > > > dhanu.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Thus the purpose of whole exercise was to say that

> when

> > > we say

> > > > > > > > > shadvargas of Lagna or Mars,it does not mean the

> rashis

> > > owned

> > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > Lagna or Mars.But the Rashis on towhich they are

> > > placed,having

> > > > > > > > > hora,drekkana etc etc.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Vargas of Mars in the 2nd Rashi from karakamsha too

> is no

> > > > > > > differet.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > There are many meanings,that is why Rashi is called as

> > > > > > > > > Kshethra /Riksha /havana etc.But i don't think sage

> will

> > > use

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > saword to represent something belonging to same class.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > For example sage will not use ''sva'' to mean 2nd as

> well

> > > as

> > > > > > > 3rd.Then

> > > > > > > > > we cannot interpret.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Similarly Rashi and navamsha will not be represented

> > > using the

> > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > word.Rashi/Kshethra/Riksha/Bhvana/Lagna etc are

> synonyms

> > > an

> > > > > ifthey

> > > > > > > > > are used for navamsha then what is the whole purpose

> > > behind

> > > > > > > defintion.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > On the other hand sva was used for iems from different

> > > > > classes.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > This wasin mind while making such a statement.I will

> try

> > > my

> > > > > best

> > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > polish my style of writing.I accept my limitations in

> > > writing.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I have not understood your question or the intent

> behind

> > > > > that.

> > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > Vargas are divisions, within a rasi, ruled by

> different

> > > > > grahas.

> > > > > > > So

> > > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > one wants t look at Vargas falling in lagna the shad

> > > Vargas

> > > > > will

> > > > > > > > > mean

> > > > > > > > > > the rasi equivalent occurring at lagna position in

> the 6

> > > > > > > divisional

> > > > > > > > > > charts of Rashi, Hora, Dreshkana, Navamsha,

> > > Dwaadashamsha

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > Trimshamsha. Or at least this is what I have learnt.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Sages did not use words in vain or context. I

> agree. But

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > mean they used the words to mean only one thing

> always.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I never said that the meaning can be changed to

> suit our

> > > > > > > > > convenience and

> > > > > > > > > > I would request you not to attribute such

> sentiments to

> > > me.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > However I do say that word are used in different

> > > contexts to

> > > > > > > mean

> > > > > > > > > > different things, especially in Sanskrit texts of

> > > Jyotish. I

> > > > > > > have,

> > > > > > > > > just

> > > > > > > > > > a few minutes back use of " Sva " with different

> meaning

> > > at

> > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > places by Varaha Mihira to you. I hope you do not

> also

> > > > > attribute

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > words that you attributed to me to the venerated

> Varaha

> > > > > Mihira.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar,.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Pls tell me what you mean by shadvargas of

> lagna.How

> > > do

> > > > > you

> > > > > > > find

> > > > > > > > > > > them.Do you go by ownership or placement

> > > > > > > > > (Rashi/navamsha/dwadshamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > etc).

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > There are shlokas in Varahamihiras text which

> > > > > says ,Okarkshe

> > > > > > > > > > > Purushamshakae.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Which means in Ojarashi and Oja amsha.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > As per me sages will not use any words out of

> > > context.If

> > > > > he

> > > > > > > wants

> > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > say amsha he will mention it.He will not use

> Rashi to

> > > > > mean as

> > > > > > > > > amsha.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Ojarkshe is Oja Rashi.Similarly Paparkshe is Papa

> > > Rashi.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > If you want to say as per our conveninece we can

> > > change

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > > > > > of riksha/rashi/bhavana/bhavas as navamsha then i

> > > cannot

> > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > > anything.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I can only respect your views.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I will tell you why that happens. You begin with

> > > quoting

> > > > > > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > then give a sutra from Jaimini as being said by

> > > > > Parashara.

> > > > > > > > > > > > Interpretation of sutras is not the easiest of

> the

> > > > > things,

> > > > > > > more

> > > > > > > > > so

> > > > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > Jaimini's Upadesha sutras. That the sutras use

> > > > > KaTaPaYaadi

> > > > > > > > > > > encryption

> > > > > > > > > > > > makes them even more difficult to interpret. I

> am

> > > sure

> > > > > you

> > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > noticed

> > > > > > > > > > > > this when Sreenadh interpreted the KaTaPaYaadi

> > > Varga in

> > > > > a

> > > > > > > wrong

> > > > > > > > > > > fashion.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Then there is your insistence to let Sanskrit

> > > grammar

> > > > > give

> > > > > > > a go

> > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > > that can make interpretation of a shloka or

> sutra

> > > fit

> > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > proposition.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Any of the Shodasha Vargas of a rasi can be

> > > referred to

> > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > Varga,

> > > > > > > > > > > but as

> > > > > > > > > > > > far as I know in astrology, when one talks of

> Varga,

> > > > > without

> > > > > > > > > > > qualifying

> > > > > > > > > > > > it, or Amshas that generally refers to navamsha

> or

> > > > > > > > > Dwadashaamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Another reason that we can not agree, or seem to

> > > agree,

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > you are

> > > > > > > > > > > > reluctant to call a navamsha by the nomenclature

> > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > rasi.

> > > > > > > > > > > This

> > > > > > > > > > > > makes it difficult to convey what I mean to say

> in

> > > > > English

> > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > the language of the net and which both of us

> know.

> > > Now

> > > > > > > since you

> > > > > > > > > > > do not

> > > > > > > > > > > > want to use the word Mesha navamsha as Mesha is

> a

> > > rashi

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > logic it can not be a navamsha, it becomes

> > > difficult to

> > > > > > > convey

> > > > > > > > > > > what I

> > > > > > > > > > > > understand by the texts.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I will like to draw your attention to the

> literal

> > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > > > > rasi. It means a heap and nothing more. In

> astrology

> > > > > since

> > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > > > encompasses many stars that make up a nakshatra

> the

> > > > > 1/12th

> > > > > > > > > > > division of

> > > > > > > > > > > > the zodiac is called a Rasi. Or at least this

> is my

> > > > > > > > > understanding

> > > > > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > > reason of using the word rasi for the 1/12th

> > > division

> > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > zodiac.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I do not agree that by Chandra in Guru Varga it

> is

> > > meant

> > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > Varga of

> > > > > > > > > > > > Chandra is being seen. To me we are talking

> about is

> > > > > whether

> > > > > > > > > > > Chandra is

> > > > > > > > > > > > falling in the Varga of Guru in which ever rasi

> he

> > > is

> > > > > > > occupying.

> > > > > > > > > > > So in

> > > > > > > > > > > > Navamsha we see whether Chandra is occupying

> Pisces

> > > or

> > > > > > > > > Sagittarius

> > > > > > > > > > > > navamsha. I also do not agree that there are

> Vargas

> > > of

> > > > > > > Chandra

> > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > of any

> > > > > > > > > > > > planet for that matter. The 16 Vargas that

> Parashara

> > > > > talks

> > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > that of a Rasi, beginning from the Rashi itself.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > If the Vargas are not owned by different

> planets,

> > > pray

> > > > > why

> > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > > the sage

> > > > > > > > > > > > tell us to see occupation of a friend, own etc.

> > > Varga to

> > > > > > > assess

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > strength of a planet in the Varga concerned?

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I have interacted with many astrologers of

> > > yesteryears

> > > > > (with

> > > > > > > > > > > respect to

> > > > > > > > > > > > my age group) and have never found them

> claiming the

> > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > only lagna and planets.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > If you insist that sage Parashara gave the SU.

> 52.-

> > > > > " Tatra

> > > > > > > > > > > bhrigwongaraka

> > > > > > > > > > > > varge paradarikaha " , perhaps you are referring

> to

> > > some

> > > > > > > edition

> > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > BPHS

> > > > > > > > > > > > that I do not have. However I do have that in

> the

> > > > > umpteen

> > > > > > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > > > texts on Jaimini that I do have in my library.

> And

> > > by

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > way,

> > > > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > > scholars have interpreted that to mean 9th from

> > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > the 2nd.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I do not agree that a graha can simultaneously

> > > occupy

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars, simultaneously, as is being

> > > suggested

> > > > > > > whether in

> > > > > > > > > > > rasi or

> > > > > > > > > > > > in any of the Vargas. It could only occupy one

> or

> > > the

> > > > > other.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I have seen you arguing in favor of looking at

> the

> > > > > > > Shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > grahas Venus and Mars. I would like you to look

> at

> > > all

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > six

> > > > > > > > > > > charts

> > > > > > > > > > > > whose Vargas together are referred as

> Shadvargas and

> > > > > try to

> > > > > > > find

> > > > > > > > > > > out

> > > > > > > > > > > > whether they do indeed contain the 6 Vargas of

> Venus

> > > > > and 6

> > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > Mars. I am sure that you will find them to

> contain

> > > only

> > > > > 5

> > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > each of

> > > > > > > > > > > > the grahas. Once you confirm this by looking at

> the

> > > 6

> > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > self,

> > > > > > > > > > > > tell me how one can look at Shadvargas of Venus

> or

> > > Mars

> > > > > as

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > > > suggested to be the interpretation of the sutra

> that

> > > > > you are

> > > > > > > > > > > referring to.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > You may also be interested to know that

> Parashara

> > > talks

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > AK

> > > > > > > > > > > falling in

> > > > > > > > > > > > the Varga of Chandra, Mars or Venus also having

> the

> > > > > roving

> > > > > > > eye

> > > > > > > > > on

> > > > > > > > > > > others

> > > > > > > > > > > > wives. So the combination of Venus and Mars

> being

> > > the

> > > > > only

> > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > giving

> > > > > > > > > > > > the roving eye for other's wives, that you are

> > > > > advancing as

> > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > standalone

> > > > > > > > > > > > principle, may not, necessarily, be the way the

> sage

> > > > > looked

> > > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > > > > their

> > > > > > > > > > > > interpretation.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Those were written by me.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I am very dissappointed to see that ,inspite

> of

> > > > > repeating

> > > > > > > > > numerus

> > > > > > > > > > > > > times,you are unable to get what i am saying.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not talking about rashis lorded by

> shukra or

> > > Mars

> > > > > > > here.I

> > > > > > > > > am

> > > > > > > > > > > > > talking about the shadvargas vargas of mars

> and

> > > > > shukra.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pls tell me what is the meaning of shadvargas

> or

> > > > > simply

> > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > lagna.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the rashi in which lagna is placed.The

> > > > > navamshaka of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna,Trimshamshaka of Lagna etc.Can we see

> any

> > > > > lordship

> > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > say.Lagna does not own any rashi.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly when we say vargas of Venus -It

> means

> > > Rashi

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus,Hora,navamshaka,drekkana,trimshamshaka

> etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Shadvarga is never the rashi owned by a

> > > planet.Then

> > > > > Lagna

> > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > never

> > > > > > > > > > > > > have shadvarga.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say,Chandra in Guru

> > > Varga - We

> > > > > > > are not

> > > > > > > > > > > seeing

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the shadvarga of Guru,but that of chandra.Is

> > > chandra

> > > > > > > placed in

> > > > > > > > > > > Guru

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Rashi?Is Chandra navamshaka in Guru Rashi.Is

> > > Chandra

> > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamshaka in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Guru Rashi etc is what we check.If so chandras

> > > vargas

> > > > > > > fall in

> > > > > > > > > > > guru

> > > > > > > > > > > > > rashis or we say chandra is in guruvargas.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > For the same reason schoplars of yesteryears

> > > always

> > > > > say

> > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > for our natal Lagna and Planets.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand you are taking them as

> owned by

> > > a

> > > > > > > > > planet.Every

> > > > > > > > > > > > > shadvarga that derive is like that.You may

> check

> > > this

> > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > shri

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Narasimha,how he is deriving it for his

> software.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > For the same reason Bhrigu and Angara can have

> > > Varga

> > > > > > > together

> > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Rashi which is 2nd from Karakamsha.Sage

> clearly

> > > talks

> > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > vargas from both.Moreover the next shloka is

> > > talking

> > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus together or aspecting the 2nd from

> > > karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we go by your

> explanation,we

> > > > > have to

> > > > > > > opt

> > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > just one among shukra or Mars which is not

> > > > > proper.Their

> > > > > > > Joint

> > > > > > > > > > > > > influence creates sexual drive.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I request you to kindly read this with care.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Rspect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The below remarks are not from my mail at

> all.

> > > I do

> > > > > not

> > > > > > > know

> > > > > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > think I would write that. I am sure you know

> > > that

> > > > > this

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > my

> > > > > > > > > > > > > style

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of writing at all.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > " >From my experience -Mars + Venus creates

> > > certin

> > > > > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why are you

> > > going

> > > > > for

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > owned by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > just one of them and that too without a

> > > planetary

> > > > > link

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > really

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > worrying me.Shri Rath has translated so,i

> > > agree.But

> > > > > i

> > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will definitely

> > > correct

> > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > benfit

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of jyotish community. "

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > As to why I said they could not be having

> their

> > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > together in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi or Bhava does not need any deeper

> > > explanation.

> > > > > If

> > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > looking

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > at the 2nd from Karakamsha in the rasi

> chart,

> > > as you

> > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > right, you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > could not have both Mesha and Vrishabha or

> Tula

> > > and

> > > > > > > > > Vrishchika

> > > > > > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd from the Karakamsha, is that not so?

> > > Similarly

> > > > > if in

> > > > > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > chart

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the 2nd from Karakamsha is to be seen, the

> 2nd

> > > > > could be

> > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > > > navamshas.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I though you meant so.Because in

> subsequent

> > > lines

> > > > > we

> > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > see

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and Karakamsha being used for the same

> > > > > purpose.But if

> > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there are other places where swamsha is

> used

> > > for

> > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagnamsha ,then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i can trust you if you can point me to

> that.

> > > This

> > > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > be a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problem and in no way it will affect us.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars can ofcourse have their

> Vargas

> > > in a

> > > > > > > single

> > > > > > > > > > > rashi or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bhava.Venus can have navamsha there,Mars

> can

> > > have

> > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there,Venus can have Trimshamsha

> there,Mars

> > > can

> > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there,they both can have drekkana there

> etc

> > > etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus sage is talking about Bhrigu and

> Angara

> > > both

> > > > > (as

> > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > identified gramattically) having varga

> there

> > > and

> > > > > it is

> > > > > > > > > very

> > > > > > > > > > > much

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you note the next line -Sage is talking

> > > about

> > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > Venus

> > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > joining or aspecting the 2nd from

> Karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From my experience -Mars + Venus creates

> > > certin

> > > > > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why are

> you

> > > going

> > > > > for

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > owned by just one of them and that too

> > > without a

> > > > > > > planetary

> > > > > > > > > > > link is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really worrying me.Shri Rath has

> translated

> > > so,i

> > > > > > > > > agree.But i

> > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will

> definitely

> > > > > correct

> > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > > for the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > benfit of jyotish community.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am surprised as to why you say so.That

> they

> > > > > cannot

> > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > together.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pardeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have never said that I do not think

> that

> > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different where the context demands so.

> At

> > > the

> > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > time I

> > > > > > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammar can be put to rest to in the

> name of

> > > > > > > context,

> > > > > > > > > > > without

> > > > > > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sound

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course if you want contextual

> translation

> > > > > only,

> > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > one can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > certainly say that the " Meshadi raashige

> > > > > swaamshe "

> > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > always be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > translated as " Falling in Mesha

> navamsha in

> > > > > Mesha

> > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > > > etc. " .

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way " Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka

> Varge " ,

> > > that

> > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > mention, does

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean varga of both Venus and mars, but

> of

> > > varga

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > Venus OR

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > due to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the grammar only. varga of two planets

> can

> > > not

> > > > > fall

> > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bhava/amsha/rasi whether in rasi or

> > > Navamsha or

> > > > > any

> > > > > > > > > other

> > > > > > > > > > > chart.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Grammatically,what you are saying is

> also

> > > > > true.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But Jyotish defintions play a

> preceding

> > > role

> > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > choosing

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammatical meaning.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example one meaning of

> labhe ,Swamshe

> > > etc

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > 11th

> > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But if we go by that we will

> definitely

> > > > > translate

> > > > > > > > > > > swamshe in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > meshadi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashige as ''in Swamsha'',thereby

> > > translating

> > > > > it

> > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > full

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart.This as you too agree,then

> cannot

> > > pass

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > test,of

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > subsequent shlokas.I understand gladly

> > > that

> > > > > you

> > > > > > > too

> > > > > > > > > > > agree that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha and karakamsha are the same.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So the context decides plural/singular

> > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > necessarily

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the ''E''

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as you have rightly mentioned.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But in essence what i want to say

> is ''E''

> > > > > does

> > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > always

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean ''in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the'' as you have

> interpreted.Labheshe is

> > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > example.Karake

> > > > > > > > > > > > > is an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus it can very well mean Varga of

> > > Shukra and

> > > > > > > Mars-

> > > > > > > > > > > which can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > six vargas or one varga.(Not lordship)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra -(There) In the second from

> > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga or Vargas of Venus and Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now why should we need two

> qualifiesrs for

> > > > > > > destination

> > > > > > > > > (1)

> > > > > > > > > > > In

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from karakamsha 2)in the vargas of?)-

> if

> > > we had

> > > > > > > another

> > > > > > > > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your interpretation is right.That

> planet

> > > will

> > > > > > > answer

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > question -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who is in the vargas of ?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly - Swamshad dhane Shukrar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Swamshad dhane is already pointing to

> > > > > destination-

> > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > need

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > another ''in the'' vargas of.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say in the 2nd

> > > from

> > > > > > > > > karakamsha if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mars and venus are present,it fits in

> > > > > > > > > > > grammatically.Moreover

> > > > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i had

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentioned rashi lordship without

> planetary

> > > > > link

> > > > > > > > > > > > > (placement/amsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is too general.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> 40>,

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I may be wrong but the " E " by itself

> > > does

> > > > > not

> > > > > > > point

> > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > word Shadvarga indicating 6 Vargas

> that

> > > is

> > > > > one

> > > > > > > group

> > > > > > > > > > > > > (though it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more than one unit) and so " Varge " ,

> the

> > > > > > > singular is

> > > > > > > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " E " means " in " . I would be happy if

> an

> > > > > example

> > > > > > > > > > > of " Varge "

> > > > > > > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plural

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can be given.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not at all think that Vargaka

> or

> > > Varga

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > singular and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargake

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge is plural, at all. Both the

> > > manner of

> > > > > > > using

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > indicates singular. it is no use

> > > projecting

> > > > > > > what is

> > > > > > > > > > > clearly

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saptami

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vibhakti and singular as being a

> plural

> > > > > word. If

> > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > to be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dvivachana it may become " VargyoH "

> > > > > or " VargeSu "

> > > > > > > (for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bahuvachan)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge. Perhaps some Sanskrit

> scholar on

> > > the

> > > > > list

> > > > > > > > > would

> > > > > > > > > > > like

> > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > comment

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on this.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, much as I would like it to

> resolve,

> > > the

> > > > > > > issue

> > > > > > > > > > > remains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unresolved.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will give you a relevant

> example to

> > > > > explain

> > > > > > > how

> > > > > > > > > > > VarGE

> > > > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > context of plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna Shad-VargaKE - Is pointing

> to

> > > all

> > > > > > > vargas -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Plural.You

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > may

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > note

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that the grammatical ending is

> > > with ''E''

> > > > > > > showing

> > > > > > > > > > > plurals

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expressed with such an ending.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now from Vrishamsha''Ka'' and

> Tulamsha

> > > > > > > example we

> > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > conclude

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VargaKA and VarGA can be used for

> the

> > > same

> > > > > > > > > purpose in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ekavachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > singular form and VargaKE and

> VarGE

> > > can be

> > > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bahuvachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plural form.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope this may help us in

> resolving

> > > our

> > > > > > > issue.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > > > > > -----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

> > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message

> have

> > > been

> > > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > > > > > -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

> message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have

> been

> > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > -------

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > -----------------

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.0/886 -

> > > Release

> > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > ---------------------

> ----

> > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/890 -

> Release

> > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeep,

 

If Dashaadhyaayi thinks Saravali is a standard text to rely upon ( as

you have quoted a reference therein quoting Saravali to support some

interpretation) why say that other concepts in Saravali are wrong?

Saravali says " Shaukre ca drishtipathagaavudaye ghataamshe " etc.

indicating the necessity of exchange of amshas and mutual aspect between

Shukra and Shani as concurrent condition for the first yoga to fructify.

And then goes on to say that if for a lagna having rasi of Shukra and

navamsha of Shani similar results would ensue. GhataaMshe has been

interpreted as the amsha of Shani and not merely amsha of Kumbha by many

translators.

 

I can not comment on the interpretation of Dashaadhyaayikar of the

shloka but the shloka from Brihat Jataka that I have also says

" driksamsthaavasitasito parasparaamshe shoke vaa yadi ghata

raashisambhavoMshaH. " followed by the next line that I did not find

necessary to quote as it does not talk about the yoga but only the

results, which you have already quoted and I felt may not be necessary

to post on line.

 

That there are two distinct yogas is also not new to translators of

Brihat jataka. Since you accept that the first line does say about

occupation of each others amsha AND aspect on each other is indeed

covered in the first line, the reluctance to accept aspects in specific

cases is something that I am not able to understand.

 

Chandrashekhar.

 

 

 

 

 

vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>

> I can clearly understand your position.Especially as you have

> said,the texts that we are referring to are different.Here comes the

> importance of Dashadhyayi.After my explanation you can also see that

> it is not only dashadhyayi ,but Saravali as well is having the same

> opinion on the shloka explained below.

>

> As i have mentioned yesterday,dashadhyayi is not covering just the

> first 10 chapters as the name suggests.For example let me take a

> chapter towards the end ,chapter 22-Sthree Jataka Adhyaya.

>

> Thalakkulathu Govinda Bhattathiri has given interpretations,for all

> the shlokas from 1 through 16,except shloka 13, while interpreting

> chapters 1 through 10. Shloka 13 as you can see is pretty straight

> forward.

>

> Now let us take the shloka which as per you is referring

> to ''Trimshamsha Chakra'' with aspects therein.Firstly the results

> for planets being placed in rashis belonging to Mesha onwards,and

> within that Trimshamshas belonging to Mars onwards is explained and

> ends by shloka 6.

>

> Now let us take

>

> ''Driksamstha VasithaSithau Parasparamshe

> Shaukre Va yadi Ghata Rashi Sambhavomsha''

> Next 2 lines explains the result.

>

> As per you,there is only a reference regarding Venus and Saturn

> aspecting each other and also in each others Amsha.This is covered

> in the first line.My worry is where has the second line gone in the

> text that you are having.Either it was not interpreted or it was

> inadvertently got missed out from printing.

>

> Now Dashadhyayi says -

>

> Driksamsthau ithyadi Yoga dvayam - Two Yogas.First one is

> corresponding to the first line as we have seen.

>

> Shaukre Rashau Yadi Kumbhamshe Udethi ..Thatha dvitheeyam - the

> second.Meaning ,The Ascendant should be either Tula or Vrishabha and

> it should have Kumbhamsha(Kumbha is Ghata - Ghata Rashi

> Sambhavomsha).

>

> Now the author says, as per some these two can be taken as one yoga

> as well(Saravali too says so).

>

> Parasparamshagatha Vasitha Sithou Paraspara Drishtau Shaukre

> Rashavudayathi Kumbhamshakashcha Bhavathi Yadee - then the

> result.And the author says -T hatha Cha Saravalyam.And quotes

> corresponding shloka from Saravali,where again the said line is

> present(sanskrit).Thus it says - For a Lady to have such a strong

> sexual desire - Purusha Veshadhari(One dressign up as a man -thus

> lesbian),her ascendant should belong to Venus and the amsha of her

> ascendant should fall in Kumbha Rashi,and in her chart Saturn and

> Venus should aspect each other and also have exchange of amshas.

>

> Thus you see,in either case there is a line which is missing in your

> book,which helps us to understand that it is not a varga chakra.I

> dont know how it happened.

>

> Thus if Dashadhyayi was not there,then i would have also not got any

> opportunity to understand this in such detail.This is the beauty of

> this text and as you know without any value ParashnaMarga will not

> praise it with such a high regard.The rest of the text is great and

> explains every concept with authority,quoting many sources.

>

> I consider you with great regard(Gurusthana) and holds respect

> towards your views and analysis.You may kindly understand that,i

> will not misquote and misrepresent,especially when the subject is

> Jyotish.If some others in this list is having mistrust,they should

> understand that i am not the only keralite living in this universe

> and they can seek help from others to see if i am cheating.I have no

> hatred towards their words.If it brings happiness to them let them

> continue with false allegations.

>

> I will prepare the paper and then would request your good self to

> review.I am so thankful that you have tested me with tough questions

> and logic,which has helped me to learn more.

>

> Respect

> Pradeep

>

>

> <%40>, " vijayadas_pradeep "

> <vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >

> > Purna drishte Purna Yogam Ardha Drishte ardhameva cha

> > Pada drishte Padayogamiti gyeyam kramat phalam.

> >

> > Is mentioned and hence the aspects are not about Rashi drishti.

> >

> > Now as i have mentioned in the past,though the name is

> > dashadhyayi,the author covers shlokas,from most of the chapters as

> > and when he finds some interrelationship or link.This i consider

> as a

> > real blessing.Now how amshakas are interpreted,has been

> > demonstrated ,for numerous contexts,and thus forming a guideline

> for

> > other shloka interpretations.

> >

> > I will see the shlokas,and will write back.

> >

> > Respect

> > Pradeep

> >

> >

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > Transits are to be seen no doubt from the rasis synonymous to

> the

> > > navamsha rasis, but when it is sphuta it is of the navamshesha

> and

> > not

> > > the rasis. There is a difference between the two.

> > >

> > > I have already said I do not consider aspects in D-charts,

> unless

> > > specifically mentioned in some yogas, and also that barring

> > navamsha

> > > charts, in other varga charts I look at rashi aspects. That does

> > not

> > > mean I should close my eyes to what is written in other

> respected

> > texts.

> > > That only means I look at charts from a different angle.

> > >

> > > There is nothing in the lagna shadvargake shloka to indicate

> graded

> > > aspects and so it does not rule out rashi drishti at all. Ans

> since

> > you

> > > have quoted both Parashara and Jaimini you should know that

> rashi

> > > drishtis are valid in Parashara too and exclusively so in

> Jaimini.

> > >

> > > Your translation and mine of the shlokas differ and that is why

> > there is

> > > no agreement. If you expect Dashaadhyaayi to give divisional

> charts

> > and

> > > their interpretations, that is not possible as Varaha Mihira on

> > whose

> > > work it is only a commentary does not speak of it and it is

> > commentary

> > > on only 10 of the 18 adhayaayas of Brihat jataka. If you read

> > Brihat

> > > jataka carefully, you will see reference o aspects in

> Trimshamsha

> > there.

> > > Since you have many times claimed superiority of Dashaadhyaayi

> over

> > many

> > > of the more ancient and respected classics, I find it strange as

> to

> > why

> > > you do not want to accept what is said in the original text on

> > which

> > > Dashaadhyaayi is only a commentary and that too on 10 adhyaayas

> as

> > the

> > > name suggests (that does not, of course, make it any less

> > respectable).

> > > There are many references to planets being placed in a navamsha,

> > which

> > > is not identical with the rasi whose name the navamsha enjoys,

> and

> > the

> > > results from them in the 21st adhyaaya. How do you map back such

> a

> > > navamsha to the rasi and what should be the logic? You also see

> > > reference to Guru occupying own Trimshamsha, irrespective of

> rasi

> > in the

> > > same adhayaaya. There are too many references like this to

> question

> > the

> > > theory that the amshas need always be mapped back to identical

> rasi

> > in

> > > rasi chart.

> > >

> > > Could you tell why this reluctance to accept Varaha Mihira?

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > >

> > > > Meshamshe, Vrishamshe Transit results can be seen from Mesha

> and

> > > > Vrishabha rashis.Thus you are aware of what i am

> saying.Moreover

> > we

> > > > have seen paparkshe.we have seen meshadi rashige swamshe.we

> have

> > seen

> > > > that bhrigwonkaraka varge ,as per your understanding cannot

> > satisfy

> > > > both mars and venus.The very next shloka is talking about mars

> and

> > > > venus yuti or aspecting.

> > > >

> > > > Now we can forget all these as you are not williing to accept

> > > > rashi,riksha etc as valid reasoning.

> > > >

> > > > We have seen Lagna shadvargake shloka with aspectual

> > grades,proving

> > > > that they ae not rashi drishtis.Couple of days back and many

> > times in

> > > > the past,i have heard from you that you don't support aspects

> in

> > > > Vargas.

> > > >

> > > > If you still have the sam views,then to understand shadvargake

> > > > shloka,we have to see planets aspecting lagna in ''six

> charts''.As

> > > > lagna can fall in any rashi,you have to accept aspects fully

> in

> > all

> > > > Varga charts.

> > > >

> > > > This is relevant to our discussion as lagnamsha is also part of

> > > > shadvargas of lagna.

> > > >

> > > > As you are aware ,the BPHS translator too has expressed his

> > concern.

> > > >

> > > > Regds

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > >

> <%40>

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > How could I think shadvarga of lagna is shadvarga of rashi?

> > Lagna

> > > > is the

> > > > > point on the eastern horizon at the time of birth of a

> jataka.

> > > > >

> > > > > There is no dispute about what is lagnamsha and what is

> > karakamsha

> > > > at

> > > > > all. At the same time when reference is to a graha falling in

> > > > Lagnamsha

> > > > > it refers to the navamsha rasi (or sector ruled by one of

> the

> > rasis

> > > > of a

> > > > > planet, barring Sun and Chandra if you like it that way) in

> > which

> > > > the

> > > > > lagnamsha falls. Now that being so where is the shubha graha

> > > > supposed to

> > > > > fall in the shloka I quoted? Same with the Shubh graha in

> > > > Karakamsha and

> > > > > needing drishti of shubha graha on it. It is easy to say that

> > > > these

> > > > > need to be seen in rasi, but for lack of the reference to

> rasi,

> > > > there,

> > > > > there is no reason to assume that it does not refer to

> navamsha

> > > > rasi.

> > > > > The reference to grahas in " Meshaamshe " , " Vrishabhaamshe "

> etc

> > are

> > > > quite

> > > > > clear, in BPHS.

> > > > >

> > > > > Take care,

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Of course Yes,you are correct.Varga is found for this

> bindu

> > and in

> > > > > > the case of planets their degree decides.The rest you have

> > stated

> > > > is

> > > > > > also as per definition.My point was made under the

> impression

> > that

> > > > > > you have a view that,shadvarga of Lagna is shadvarga of a

> > > > rashi.If so

> > > > > > it is not.Shad varga is found for Lagna bindu.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The full Rashi/Kshethra in which Lagna bindu falls becomes

> its

> > > > first

> > > > > > Varga.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The Translation is entiterely correct and no one can

> > > > contradict.This

> > > > > > is similar to one planet aspecting shadvargas of lagna.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Lagnamsha is already covered in the shadvargas of

> > > > lagna.Karakamsha is

> > > > > > similar too.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Now let us see it on a chart.Karkamasha is in

> Dhanu.Jupiter is

> > > > placed

> > > > > > in Mithuna Rashi.Shubha graha is aspecting Karakamsha Lagna

> > > > > > (Rashi).Similarly Lagnamsha.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You are already aware of the rules for aspects.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I see your point of view. anyway even within shadvargas

> we

> > look

> > > > for

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > degree of a planet falling within a certain span of

> degrees

> > and

> > > > not

> > > > > > one

> > > > > > > particular bindu.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I agree that rashi is a Varga and my question is if one

> can

> > > > look at

> > > > > > > aspects in one Varga why not in other Vargas? I am sure

> you

> > know

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > > personally I use navamsha to find only the strength of

> > grahas,

> > > > but

> > > > > > there

> > > > > > > is no reason to rule out aspects in Navamshas or other

> > charts

> > > > > > totally.

> > > > > > > One of the raj yogas mentioned by Parashara talks of

> aspect

> > of

> > > > > > shubha

> > > > > > > grahas on the karakamsha and Lagnamsha which should also

> be

> > > > > > tenanted by

> > > > > > > Shubha grahas, leaving no doubt as to where the aspects

> are

> > to

> > > > be

> > > > > > seen.

> > > > > > > And for the record the translation to that effect is by

> an

> > > > eminent

> > > > > > > astrologer who was Professor of astrology in Banaras

> Hindu

> > > > > > University.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Lagna as a bindu was mentioned for driving home the

> > shadvarga

> > > > > > > > calculations,if any members were having doubts.For

> > shadvarga

> > > > > > > > calculation of planets too we need the bindu or degree

> of

> > a

> > > > planet

> > > > > > > > within a rashi, as you are aware.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > We have to look at Rashis.This is so because Rashi

> (one 30

> > > > degree

> > > > > > > > sector ) is the first varga.As this Varga is

> synonymous

> > with

> > > > Bhava

> > > > > > > > houses are analysed w.r to Rashis.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > If lagna is a bindu a you propose, and nothing more,

> > then

> > > > how

> > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > indicate an entire rasi? Now if this is correct, and

> > > > technically

> > > > > > > > it is,

> > > > > > > > > then by your reckoning there is no need to look at

> rasis

> > > > too. Is

> > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > what you mean to say?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > If shadvargas are not related to the portion falling

> in

> > the

> > > > > > lagna

> > > > > > > > rasis,

> > > > > > > > > which holds the degree of lagna Madhya, then it

> appears

> > we

> > > > must

> > > > > > ask

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > sages to redefine Vargas. I doubt they need our

> advise.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > There was a purpose.I just wanted to explain it to

> the

> > > > > > members if

> > > > > > > > > > some of them are not sure on what shadvarga of

> lagna

> > is

> > > > and

> > > > > > how it

> > > > > > > > > > is calculated.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > As you have said Vargas are divisions of a

> rashi.But

> > > > > > shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > Lagna is not the Vargas falling in Lagna.Here

> lagna is

> > > > not a

> > > > > > > > > > rashi,but a bindu.Vargas are found from a

> degree.The

> > > > degree

> > > > > > of a

> > > > > > > > > > planet or degree of lagna.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > As you may know we do notneed six charts to

> dtermine

> > > > > > shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > lagna.All we need is the degree of lagna and the

> rashi

> > > > rising.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Let us take an example.Lagna is at 11 degrees in

> > dhanu.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Let us find the shadvargas of Lagna with th help

> of

> > rising

> > > > > > rashi

> > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > degree.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > 1st Varga - The Rashi in which Lagna bindu is

> > falling -

> > > > Dhanu

> > > > > > > > > > 2nd Varga - The Hora in which Lagna bindu is

> falling -

> > As

> > > > 11

> > > > > > > > degrees

> > > > > > > > > > falls in the 1st half of dhanu - Surya Hora

> > > > > > > > > > 3rd Varga - The drekkana in which Lagna bindu is

> > falling -

> > > > As

> > > > > > 11

> > > > > > > > > > degrees falls in the 2nd 1/3rd of dhanu - Drekkana

> is

> > > > Mesha.

> > > > > > > > > > 4th Varga - As 11 degrees falls in the 3rd

> > > > saptamsha ,Lagna

> > > > > > > > saptamsha

> > > > > > > > > > is Kumbha.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Similraly - Lagna navamsha is Karka,Lagna

> Trimshamsha

> > is

> > > > > > dhanu.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Thus the purpose of whole exercise was to say that

> > when

> > > > we say

> > > > > > > > > > shadvargas of Lagna or Mars,it does not mean the

> > rashis

> > > > owned

> > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > Lagna or Mars.But the Rashis on towhich they are

> > > > placed,having

> > > > > > > > > > hora,drekkana etc etc.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Vargas of Mars in the 2nd Rashi from karakamsha

> too

> > is no

> > > > > > > > differet.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > There are many meanings,that is why Rashi is

> called as

> > > > > > > > > > Kshethra /Riksha /havana etc.But i don't think

> sage

> > will

> > > > use

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > saword to represent something belonging to same

> class.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > For example sage will not use ''sva'' to mean 2nd

> as

> > well

> > > > as

> > > > > > > > 3rd.Then

> > > > > > > > > > we cannot interpret.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Similarly Rashi and navamsha will not be

> represented

> > > > using the

> > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > word.Rashi/Kshethra/Riksha/Bhvana/Lagna etc are

> > synonyms

> > > > an

> > > > > > ifthey

> > > > > > > > > > are used for navamsha then what is the whole

> purpose

> > > > behind

> > > > > > > > defintion.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > On the other hand sva was used for iems from

> different

> > > > > > classes.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > This wasin mind while making such a statement.I

> will

> > try

> > > > my

> > > > > > best

> > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > polish my style of writing.I accept my limitations

> in

> > > > writing.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I have not understood your question or the

> intent

> > behind

> > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > Vargas are divisions, within a rasi, ruled by

> > different

> > > > > > grahas.

> > > > > > > > So

> > > > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > one wants t look at Vargas falling in lagna the

> shad

> > > > Vargas

> > > > > > will

> > > > > > > > > > mean

> > > > > > > > > > > the rasi equivalent occurring at lagna position

> in

> > the 6

> > > > > > > > divisional

> > > > > > > > > > > charts of Rashi, Hora, Dreshkana, Navamsha,

> > > > Dwaadashamsha

> > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamsha. Or at least this is what I have

> learnt.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Sages did not use words in vain or context. I

> > agree. But

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > mean they used the words to mean only one thing

> > always.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I never said that the meaning can be changed to

> > suit our

> > > > > > > > > > convenience and

> > > > > > > > > > > I would request you not to attribute such

> > sentiments to

> > > > me.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > However I do say that word are used in different

> > > > contexts to

> > > > > > > > mean

> > > > > > > > > > > different things, especially in Sanskrit texts of

> > > > Jyotish. I

> > > > > > > > have,

> > > > > > > > > > just

> > > > > > > > > > > a few minutes back use of " Sva " with different

> > meaning

> > > > at

> > > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > > places by Varaha Mihira to you. I hope you do

> not

> > also

> > > > > > attribute

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > words that you attributed to me to the venerated

> > Varaha

> > > > > > Mihira.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar,.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Pls tell me what you mean by shadvargas of

> > lagna.How

> > > > do

> > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > find

> > > > > > > > > > > > them.Do you go by ownership or placement

> > > > > > > > > > (Rashi/navamsha/dwadshamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > etc).

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > There are shlokas in Varahamihiras text which

> > > > > > says ,Okarkshe

> > > > > > > > > > > > Purushamshakae.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Which means in Ojarashi and Oja amsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > As per me sages will not use any words out of

> > > > context.If

> > > > > > he

> > > > > > > > wants

> > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > say amsha he will mention it.He will not use

> > Rashi to

> > > > > > mean as

> > > > > > > > > > amsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Ojarkshe is Oja Rashi.Similarly Paparkshe is

> Papa

> > > > Rashi.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > If you want to say as per our conveninece we

> can

> > > > change

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > > > > > > of riksha/rashi/bhavana/bhavas as navamsha

> then i

> > > > cannot

> > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > > > anything.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I can only respect your views.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I will tell you why that happens. You begin

> with

> > > > quoting

> > > > > > > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > then give a sutra from Jaimini as being said

> by

> > > > > > Parashara.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Interpretation of sutras is not the easiest

> of

> > the

> > > > > > things,

> > > > > > > > more

> > > > > > > > > > so

> > > > > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Jaimini's Upadesha sutras. That the sutras

> use

> > > > > > KaTaPaYaadi

> > > > > > > > > > > > encryption

> > > > > > > > > > > > > makes them even more difficult to interpret.

> I

> > am

> > > > sure

> > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > noticed

> > > > > > > > > > > > > this when Sreenadh interpreted the

> KaTaPaYaadi

> > > > Varga in

> > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > wrong

> > > > > > > > > > > > fashion.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Then there is your insistence to let Sanskrit

> > > > grammar

> > > > > > give

> > > > > > > > a go

> > > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > that can make interpretation of a shloka or

> > sutra

> > > > fit

> > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > proposition.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Any of the Shodasha Vargas of a rasi can be

> > > > referred to

> > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > Varga,

> > > > > > > > > > > > but as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > far as I know in astrology, when one talks

> of

> > Varga,

> > > > > > without

> > > > > > > > > > > > qualifying

> > > > > > > > > > > > > it, or Amshas that generally refers to

> navamsha

> > or

> > > > > > > > > > Dwadashaamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Another reason that we can not agree, or

> seem to

> > > > agree,

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > you are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > reluctant to call a navamsha by the

> nomenclature

> > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > rasi.

> > > > > > > > > > > > This

> > > > > > > > > > > > > makes it difficult to convey what I mean to

> say

> > in

> > > > > > English

> > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the language of the net and which both of us

> > know.

> > > > Now

> > > > > > > > since you

> > > > > > > > > > > > do not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > want to use the word Mesha navamsha as Mesha

> is

> > a

> > > > rashi

> > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > > logic it can not be a navamsha, it becomes

> > > > difficult to

> > > > > > > > convey

> > > > > > > > > > > > what I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > understand by the texts.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I will like to draw your attention to the

> > literal

> > > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi. It means a heap and nothing more. In

> > astrology

> > > > > > since

> > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > encompasses many stars that make up a

> nakshatra

> > the

> > > > > > 1/12th

> > > > > > > > > > > > division of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the zodiac is called a Rasi. Or at least

> this

> > is my

> > > > > > > > > > understanding

> > > > > > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > reason of using the word rasi for the 1/12th

> > > > division

> > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > > zodiac.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not agree that by Chandra in Guru Varga

> it

> > is

> > > > meant

> > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > Varga of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandra is being seen. To me we are talking

> > about is

> > > > > > whether

> > > > > > > > > > > > Chandra is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > falling in the Varga of Guru in which ever

> rasi

> > he

> > > > is

> > > > > > > > occupying.

> > > > > > > > > > > > So in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Navamsha we see whether Chandra is occupying

> > Pisces

> > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > Sagittarius

> > > > > > > > > > > > > navamsha. I also do not agree that there are

> > Vargas

> > > > of

> > > > > > > > Chandra

> > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > of any

> > > > > > > > > > > > > planet for that matter. The 16 Vargas that

> > Parashara

> > > > > > talks

> > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > that of a Rasi, beginning from the Rashi

> itself.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > If the Vargas are not owned by different

> > planets,

> > > > pray

> > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > > > the sage

> > > > > > > > > > > > > tell us to see occupation of a friend, own

> etc.

> > > > Varga to

> > > > > > > > assess

> > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > strength of a planet in the Varga concerned?

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I have interacted with many astrologers of

> > > > yesteryears

> > > > > > (with

> > > > > > > > > > > > respect to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > my age group) and have never found them

> > claiming the

> > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > only lagna and planets.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you insist that sage Parashara gave the

> SU.

> > 52.-

> > > > > > " Tatra

> > > > > > > > > > > > bhrigwongaraka

> > > > > > > > > > > > > varge paradarikaha " , perhaps you are

> referring

> > to

> > > > some

> > > > > > > > edition

> > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > BPHS

> > > > > > > > > > > > > that I do not have. However I do have that

> in

> > the

> > > > > > umpteen

> > > > > > > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > > > > texts on Jaimini that I do have in my

> library.

> > And

> > > > by

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > way,

> > > > > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > > > scholars have interpreted that to mean 9th

> from

> > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > the 2nd.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not agree that a graha can

> simultaneously

> > > > occupy

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars, simultaneously, as is being

> > > > suggested

> > > > > > > > whether in

> > > > > > > > > > > > rasi or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > in any of the Vargas. It could only occupy

> one

> > or

> > > > the

> > > > > > other.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I have seen you arguing in favor of looking

> at

> > the

> > > > > > > > Shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > grahas Venus and Mars. I would like you to

> look

> > at

> > > > all

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > six

> > > > > > > > > > > > charts

> > > > > > > > > > > > > whose Vargas together are referred as

> > Shadvargas and

> > > > > > try to

> > > > > > > > find

> > > > > > > > > > > > out

> > > > > > > > > > > > > whether they do indeed contain the 6 Vargas

> of

> > Venus

> > > > > > and 6

> > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars. I am sure that you will find them to

> > contain

> > > > only

> > > > > > 5

> > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > each of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the grahas. Once you confirm this by looking

> at

> > the

> > > > 6

> > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > self,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > tell me how one can look at Shadvargas of

> Venus

> > or

> > > > Mars

> > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested to be the interpretation of the

> sutra

> > that

> > > > > > you are

> > > > > > > > > > > > referring to.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > You may also be interested to know that

> > Parashara

> > > > talks

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > AK

> > > > > > > > > > > > falling in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the Varga of Chandra, Mars or Venus also

> having

> > the

> > > > > > roving

> > > > > > > > eye

> > > > > > > > > > on

> > > > > > > > > > > > others

> > > > > > > > > > > > > wives. So the combination of Venus and Mars

> > being

> > > > the

> > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > giving

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the roving eye for other's wives, that you

> are

> > > > > > advancing as

> > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > > standalone

> > > > > > > > > > > > > principle, may not, necessarily, be the way

> the

> > sage

> > > > > > looked

> > > > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > > > > > their

> > > > > > > > > > > > > interpretation.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Those were written by me.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am very dissappointed to see

> that ,inspite

> > of

> > > > > > repeating

> > > > > > > > > > numerus

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > times,you are unable to get what i am

> saying.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not talking about rashis lorded by

> > shukra or

> > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > here.I

> > > > > > > > > > am

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > talking about the shadvargas vargas of

> mars

> > and

> > > > > > shukra.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pls tell me what is the meaning of

> shadvargas

> > or

> > > > > > simply

> > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > lagna.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the rashi in which lagna is

> placed.The

> > > > > > navamshaka of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna,Trimshamshaka of Lagna etc.Can we

> see

> > any

> > > > > > lordship

> > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > say.Lagna does not own any rashi.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly when we say vargas of Venus -It

> > means

> > > > Rashi

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> Venus,Hora,navamshaka,drekkana,trimshamshaka

> > etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shadvarga is never the rashi owned by a

> > > > planet.Then

> > > > > > Lagna

> > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > never

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > have shadvarga.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say,Chandra in Guru

> > > > Varga - We

> > > > > > > > are not

> > > > > > > > > > > > seeing

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the shadvarga of Guru,but that of

> chandra.Is

> > > > chandra

> > > > > > > > placed in

> > > > > > > > > > > > Guru

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rashi?Is Chandra navamshaka in Guru

> Rashi.Is

> > > > Chandra

> > > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamshaka in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guru Rashi etc is what we check.If so

> chandras

> > > > vargas

> > > > > > > > fall in

> > > > > > > > > > > > guru

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashis or we say chandra is in guruvargas.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the same reason schoplars of

> yesteryears

> > > > always

> > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for our natal Lagna and Planets.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand you are taking them as

> > owned by

> > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > planet.Every

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > shadvarga that derive is like that.You may

> > check

> > > > this

> > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > shri

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Narasimha,how he is deriving it for his

> > software.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the same reason Bhrigu and Angara can

> have

> > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > together

> > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rashi which is 2nd from Karakamsha.Sage

> > clearly

> > > > talks

> > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > vargas from both.Moreover the next shloka

> is

> > > > talking

> > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus together or aspecting the 2nd from

> > > > karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we go by your

> > explanation,we

> > > > > > have to

> > > > > > > > opt

> > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > just one among shukra or Mars which is not

> > > > > > proper.Their

> > > > > > > > Joint

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > influence creates sexual drive.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I request you to kindly read this with

> care.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rspect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The below remarks are not from my mail

> at

> > all.

> > > > I do

> > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > know

> > > > > > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think I would write that. I am sure you

> know

> > > > that

> > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > my

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > style

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of writing at all.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " >From my experience -Mars + Venus

> creates

> > > > certin

> > > > > > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why are

> you

> > > > going

> > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > owned by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just one of them and that too without a

> > > > planetary

> > > > > > link

> > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > really

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > worrying me.Shri Rath has translated so,i

> > > > agree.But

> > > > > > i

> > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will

> definitely

> > > > correct

> > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > benfit

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of jyotish community. "

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As to why I said they could not be

> having

> > their

> > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > together in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi or Bhava does not need any deeper

> > > > explanation.

> > > > > > If

> > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > looking

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at the 2nd from Karakamsha in the rasi

> > chart,

> > > > as you

> > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > right, you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > could not have both Mesha and Vrishabha

> or

> > Tula

> > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > Vrishchika

> > > > > > > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd from the Karakamsha, is that not so?

> > > > Similarly

> > > > > > if in

> > > > > > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the 2nd from Karakamsha is to be seen,

> the

> > 2nd

> > > > > > could be

> > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > navamshas.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I though you meant so.Because in

> > subsequent

> > > > lines

> > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > see

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and Karakamsha being used for the same

> > > > > > purpose.But if

> > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there are other places where swamsha

> is

> > used

> > > > for

> > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagnamsha ,then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i can trust you if you can point me to

> > that.

> > > > This

> > > > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > be a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problem and in no way it will affect

> us.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars can ofcourse have their

> > Vargas

> > > > in a

> > > > > > > > single

> > > > > > > > > > > > rashi or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bhava.Venus can have navamsha

> there,Mars

> > can

> > > > have

> > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there,Venus can have Trimshamsha

> > there,Mars

> > > > can

> > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there,they both can have drekkana

> there

> > etc

> > > > etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus sage is talking about Bhrigu and

> > Angara

> > > > both

> > > > > > (as

> > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > identified gramattically) having varga

> > there

> > > > and

> > > > > > it is

> > > > > > > > > > very

> > > > > > > > > > > > much

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you note the next line -Sage is

> talking

> > > > about

> > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > Venus

> > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > joining or aspecting the 2nd from

> > Karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From my experience -Mars + Venus

> creates

> > > > certin

> > > > > > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why

> are

> > you

> > > > going

> > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > owned by just one of them and that too

> > > > without a

> > > > > > > > planetary

> > > > > > > > > > > > link is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really worrying me.Shri Rath has

> > translated

> > > > so,i

> > > > > > > > > > agree.But i

> > > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will

> > definitely

> > > > > > correct

> > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > > > for the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > benfit of jyotish community.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am surprised as to why you say

> so.That

> > they

> > > > > > cannot

> > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > together.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pardeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> 40>,

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have never said that I do not

> think

> > that

> > > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different where the context demands

> so.

> > At

> > > > the

> > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > time I

> > > > > > > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammar can be put to rest to in the

> > name of

> > > > > > > > context,

> > > > > > > > > > > > without

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sound

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course if you want contextual

> > translation

> > > > > > only,

> > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > > one can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > certainly say that the " Meshadi

> raashige

> > > > > > swaamshe "

> > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > always be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > translated as " Falling in Mesha

> > navamsha in

> > > > > > Mesha

> > > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > > > > etc. " .

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way " Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka

> > Varge " ,

> > > > that

> > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > mention, does

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean varga of both Venus and mars,

> but

> > of

> > > > varga

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > Venus OR

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > due to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the grammar only. varga of two

> planets

> > can

> > > > not

> > > > > > fall

> > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bhava/amsha/rasi whether in rasi or

> > > > Navamsha or

> > > > > > any

> > > > > > > > > > other

> > > > > > > > > > > > chart.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Grammatically,what you are saying

> is

> > also

> > > > > > true.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But Jyotish defintions play a

> > preceding

> > > > role

> > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > choosing

> > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammatical meaning.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example one meaning of

> > labhe ,Swamshe

> > > > etc

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > 11th

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But if we go by that we will

> > definitely

> > > > > > translate

> > > > > > > > > > > > swamshe in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > meshadi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashige as ''in Swamsha'',thereby

> > > > translating

> > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > full

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart.This as you too agree,then

> > cannot

> > > > pass

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > test,of

> > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > subsequent shlokas.I understand

> gladly

> > > > that

> > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > too

> > > > > > > > > > > > agree that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha and karakamsha are the

> same.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So the context decides

> plural/singular

> > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > necessarily

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the ''E''

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as you have rightly mentioned.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But in essence what i want to say

> > is ''E''

> > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > always

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean ''in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the'' as you have

> > interpreted.Labheshe is

> > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > example.Karake

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus it can very well mean Varga of

> > > > Shukra and

> > > > > > > > Mars-

> > > > > > > > > > > > which can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > six vargas or one varga.(Not

> lordship)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra -(There) In the second from

> > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga or Vargas of Venus and Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now why should we need two

> > qualifiesrs for

> > > > > > > > destination

> > > > > > > > > > (1)

> > > > > > > > > > > > In

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from karakamsha 2)in the vargas

> of?)-

> > if

> > > > we had

> > > > > > > > another

> > > > > > > > > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your interpretation is right.That

> > planet

> > > > will

> > > > > > > > answer

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > question -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who is in the vargas of ?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly - Swamshad dhane Shukrar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Swamshad dhane is already pointing

> to

> > > > > > destination-

> > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > need

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > another ''in the'' vargas of.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say in the

> 2nd

> > > > from

> > > > > > > > > > karakamsha if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mars and venus are present,it fits

> in

> > > > > > > > > > > > grammatically.Moreover

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i had

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentioned rashi lordship without

> > planetary

> > > > > > link

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (placement/amsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is too general.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In

> <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > 40>,

> > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I may be wrong but the " E " by

> itself

> > > > does

> > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > point

> > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > word Shadvarga indicating 6

> Vargas

> > that

> > > > is

> > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > group

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (though it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more than one unit) and

> so " Varge " ,

> > the

> > > > > > > > singular is

> > > > > > > > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " E " means " in " . I would be happy

> if

> > an

> > > > > > example

> > > > > > > > > > > > of " Varge "

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plural

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can be given.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not at all think that

> Vargaka

> > or

> > > > Varga

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > singular and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargake

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge is plural, at all. Both the

> > > > manner of

> > > > > > > > using

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > indicates singular. it is no use

> > > > projecting

> > > > > > > > what is

> > > > > > > > > > > > clearly

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saptami

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vibhakti and singular as being a

> > plural

> > > > > > word. If

> > > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dvivachana it may

> become " VargyoH "

> > > > > > or " VargeSu "

> > > > > > > > (for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bahuvachan)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge. Perhaps some Sanskrit

> > scholar on

> > > > the

> > > > > > list

> > > > > > > > > > would

> > > > > > > > > > > > like

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > comment

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on this.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, much as I would like it to

> > resolve,

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > issue

> > > > > > > > > > > > remains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unresolved.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will give you a relevant

> > example to

> > > > > > explain

> > > > > > > > how

> > > > > > > > > > > > VarGE

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > context of plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna Shad-VargaKE - Is

> pointing

> > to

> > > > all

> > > > > > > > vargas -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plural.You

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > may

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > note

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that the grammatical ending is

> > > > with ''E''

> > > > > > > > showing

> > > > > > > > > > > > plurals

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expressed with such an ending.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now from Vrishamsha''Ka'' and

> > Tulamsha

> > > > > > > > example we

> > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > conclude

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VargaKA and VarGA can be used

> for

> > the

> > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > purpose in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ekavachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > singular form and VargaKE and

> > VarGE

> > > > can be

> > > > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bahuvachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plural form.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope this may help us in

> > resolving

> > > > our

> > > > > > > > issue.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------

> ---

> > ----

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > > > > > > -----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

> > > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus

> Database:

> > > > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this

> message

> > have

> > > > been

> > > > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --

> ---

> > ----

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > > > > > > -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

> > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message

> have

> > been

> > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> ---

> > ----

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

> message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have

> been

> > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------

> ---

> > ----

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > -------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > --------------

> ---

> > ----

> > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > Release

> > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > ------------------

> ---

> > ----

> > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/890 -

> > Release

> > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandrashekhar ji

 

I thought you were aware of where that shloka is from.

It is present in Rajayogadhyaya and came into picture during my

debate with shri PVR Rao.

This shloka was debated as ,interpretation of this shloka will bring

to end all doubts regarding vargamshas.

It is relevant to our discussion as you have mentioned shubha grahas

aspecting Lagnamsha,and lagnamsha i one among the shadvargas of Lagna.

 

Now you may kindly say,how this has to be interpreted ,as rashi

drishti is ruled out in this case.

 

I have no problems with Rashi drishti.But as you see in this case

grades are being mentioned.

 

Regsrding the shlokas(navamsha/trimshamsha),i did not have time

yesterday in the night.Thus i have posted you the shlokas,withfull

explanation and refernces.Kindly see them.

 

Respect

Pradeep

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> Do you mean to say that Parashara says that in connection with

> Meshaamshe etc.? I doubt that shloka exists in the karakamsha

adhyaaya,

> but of course, I could be wrong.

>

> I asked you whether you accept the rashi drishtis that are

mentioned by

> Parashara and Jaimini or not? If Dashaaadhyaayi interprets the

shlokas

> on navamsha and Trimshamshas from Brihat Jataka, why not give what

it says?

>

> You have given your interpretation of how amshakas should be

> interpreted, but failed to address the queries. May I know why?

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

>

>

> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >

> > Purna drishte Purna Yogam Ardha Drishte ardhameva cha

> > Pada drishte Padayogamiti gyeyam kramat phalam.

> >

> > Is mentioned and hence the aspects are not about Rashi drishti.

> >

> > Now as i have mentioned in the past,though the name is

> > dashadhyayi,the author covers shlokas,from most of the chapters as

> > and when he finds some interrelationship or link.This i consider

as a

> > real blessing.Now how amshakas are interpreted,has been

> > demonstrated ,for numerous contexts,and thus forming a guideline

for

> > other shloka interpretations.

> >

> > I will see the shlokas,and will write back.

> >

> > Respect

> > Pradeep

> >

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > Transits are to be seen no doubt from the rasis synonymous to

the

> > > navamsha rasis, but when it is sphuta it is of the navamshesha

and

> > not

> > > the rasis. There is a difference between the two.

> > >

> > > I have already said I do not consider aspects in D-charts,

unless

> > > specifically mentioned in some yogas, and also that barring

> > navamsha

> > > charts, in other varga charts I look at rashi aspects. That does

> > not

> > > mean I should close my eyes to what is written in other

respected

> > texts.

> > > That only means I look at charts from a different angle.

> > >

> > > There is nothing in the lagna shadvargake shloka to indicate

graded

> > > aspects and so it does not rule out rashi drishti at all. Ans

since

> > you

> > > have quoted both Parashara and Jaimini you should know that

rashi

> > > drishtis are valid in Parashara too and exclusively so in

Jaimini.

> > >

> > > Your translation and mine of the shlokas differ and that is why

> > there is

> > > no agreement. If you expect Dashaadhyaayi to give divisional

charts

> > and

> > > their interpretations, that is not possible as Varaha Mihira on

> > whose

> > > work it is only a commentary does not speak of it and it is

> > commentary

> > > on only 10 of the 18 adhayaayas of Brihat jataka. If you read

> > Brihat

> > > jataka carefully, you will see reference o aspects in

Trimshamsha

> > there.

> > > Since you have many times claimed superiority of Dashaadhyaayi

over

> > many

> > > of the more ancient and respected classics, I find it strange

as to

> > why

> > > you do not want to accept what is said in the original text on

> > which

> > > Dashaadhyaayi is only a commentary and that too on 10 adhyaayas

as

> > the

> > > name suggests (that does not, of course, make it any less

> > respectable).

> > > There are many references to planets being placed in a navamsha,

> > which

> > > is not identical with the rasi whose name the navamsha enjoys,

and

> > the

> > > results from them in the 21st adhyaaya. How do you map back

such a

> > > navamsha to the rasi and what should be the logic? You also see

> > > reference to Guru occupying own Trimshamsha, irrespective of

rasi

> > in the

> > > same adhayaaya. There are too many references like this to

question

> > the

> > > theory that the amshas need always be mapped back to identical

rasi

> > in

> > > rasi chart.

> > >

> > > Could you tell why this reluctance to accept Varaha Mihira?

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > >

> > > > Meshamshe, Vrishamshe Transit results can be seen from Mesha

and

> > > > Vrishabha rashis.Thus you are aware of what i am

saying.Moreover

> > we

> > > > have seen paparkshe.we have seen meshadi rashige swamshe.we

have

> > seen

> > > > that bhrigwonkaraka varge ,as per your understanding cannot

> > satisfy

> > > > both mars and venus.The very next shloka is talking about

mars and

> > > > venus yuti or aspecting.

> > > >

> > > > Now we can forget all these as you are not williing to accept

> > > > rashi,riksha etc as valid reasoning.

> > > >

> > > > We have seen Lagna shadvargake shloka with aspectual

> > grades,proving

> > > > that they ae not rashi drishtis.Couple of days back and many

> > times in

> > > > the past,i have heard from you that you don't support aspects

in

> > > > Vargas.

> > > >

> > > > If you still have the sam views,then to understand shadvargake

> > > > shloka,we have to see planets aspecting lagna in ''six

charts''.As

> > > > lagna can fall in any rashi,you have to accept aspects fully

in

> > all

> > > > Varga charts.

> > > >

> > > > This is relevant to our discussion as lagnamsha is also part

of

> > > > shadvargas of lagna.

> > > >

> > > > As you are aware ,the BPHS translator too has expressed his

> > concern.

> > > >

> > > > Regds

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > How could I think shadvarga of lagna is shadvarga of rashi?

> > Lagna

> > > > is the

> > > > > point on the eastern horizon at the time of birth of a

jataka.

> > > > >

> > > > > There is no dispute about what is lagnamsha and what is

> > karakamsha

> > > > at

> > > > > all. At the same time when reference is to a graha falling

in

> > > > Lagnamsha

> > > > > it refers to the navamsha rasi (or sector ruled by one of

the

> > rasis

> > > > of a

> > > > > planet, barring Sun and Chandra if you like it that way) in

> > which

> > > > the

> > > > > lagnamsha falls. Now that being so where is the shubha graha

> > > > supposed to

> > > > > fall in the shloka I quoted? Same with the Shubh graha in

> > > > Karakamsha and

> > > > > needing drishti of shubha graha on it. It is easy to say

that

> > > > these

> > > > > need to be seen in rasi, but for lack of the reference to

rasi,

> > > > there,

> > > > > there is no reason to assume that it does not refer to

navamsha

> > > > rasi.

> > > > > The reference to grahas in " Meshaamshe " , " Vrishabhaamshe "

etc

> > are

> > > > quite

> > > > > clear, in BPHS.

> > > > >

> > > > > Take care,

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Of course Yes,you are correct.Varga is found for this

bindu

> > and in

> > > > > > the case of planets their degree decides.The rest you have

> > stated

> > > > is

> > > > > > also as per definition.My point was made under the

impression

> > that

> > > > > > you have a view that,shadvarga of Lagna is shadvarga of a

> > > > rashi.If so

> > > > > > it is not.Shad varga is found for Lagna bindu.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The full Rashi/Kshethra in which Lagna bindu falls

becomes its

> > > > first

> > > > > > Varga.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The Translation is entiterely correct and no one can

> > > > contradict.This

> > > > > > is similar to one planet aspecting shadvargas of lagna.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Lagnamsha is already covered in the shadvargas of

> > > > lagna.Karakamsha is

> > > > > > similar too.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Now let us see it on a chart.Karkamasha is in

Dhanu.Jupiter is

> > > > placed

> > > > > > in Mithuna Rashi.Shubha graha is aspecting Karakamsha

Lagna

> > > > > > (Rashi).Similarly Lagnamsha.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You are already aware of the rules for aspects.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I see your point of view. anyway even within shadvargas

we

> > look

> > > > for

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > degree of a planet falling within a certain span of

degrees

> > and

> > > > not

> > > > > > one

> > > > > > > particular bindu.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I agree that rashi is a Varga and my question is if one

can

> > > > look at

> > > > > > > aspects in one Varga why not in other Vargas? I am sure

you

> > know

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > > personally I use navamsha to find only the strength of

> > grahas,

> > > > but

> > > > > > there

> > > > > > > is no reason to rule out aspects in Navamshas or other

> > charts

> > > > > > totally.

> > > > > > > One of the raj yogas mentioned by Parashara talks of

aspect

> > of

> > > > > > shubha

> > > > > > > grahas on the karakamsha and Lagnamsha which should

also be

> > > > > > tenanted by

> > > > > > > Shubha grahas, leaving no doubt as to where the aspects

are

> > to

> > > > be

> > > > > > seen.

> > > > > > > And for the record the translation to that effect is by

an

> > > > eminent

> > > > > > > astrologer who was Professor of astrology in Banaras

Hindu

> > > > > > University.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Lagna as a bindu was mentioned for driving home the

> > shadvarga

> > > > > > > > calculations,if any members were having doubts.For

> > shadvarga

> > > > > > > > calculation of planets too we need the bindu or

degree of

> > a

> > > > planet

> > > > > > > > within a rashi, as you are aware.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > We have to look at Rashis.This is so because Rashi

(one 30

> > > > degree

> > > > > > > > sector ) is the first varga.As this Varga is

synonymous

> > with

> > > > Bhava

> > > > > > > > houses are analysed w.r to Rashis.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>,

Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > If lagna is a bindu a you propose, and nothing more,

> > then

> > > > how

> > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > indicate an entire rasi? Now if this is correct, and

> > > > technically

> > > > > > > > it is,

> > > > > > > > > then by your reckoning there is no need to look at

rasis

> > > > too. Is

> > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > what you mean to say?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > If shadvargas are not related to the portion

falling in

> > the

> > > > > > lagna

> > > > > > > > rasis,

> > > > > > > > > which holds the degree of lagna Madhya, then it

appears

> > we

> > > > must

> > > > > > ask

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > sages to redefine Vargas. I doubt they need our

advise.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > There was a purpose.I just wanted to explain it

to the

> > > > > > members if

> > > > > > > > > > some of them are not sure on what shadvarga of

lagna

> > is

> > > > and

> > > > > > how it

> > > > > > > > > > is calculated.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > As you have said Vargas are divisions of a

rashi.But

> > > > > > shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > Lagna is not the Vargas falling in Lagna.Here

lagna is

> > > > not a

> > > > > > > > > > rashi,but a bindu.Vargas are found from a

degree.The

> > > > degree

> > > > > > of a

> > > > > > > > > > planet or degree of lagna.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > As you may know we do notneed six charts to

dtermine

> > > > > > shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > lagna.All we need is the degree of lagna and the

rashi

> > > > rising.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Let us take an example.Lagna is at 11 degrees in

> > dhanu.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Let us find the shadvargas of Lagna with th help

of

> > rising

> > > > > > rashi

> > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > degree.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > 1st Varga - The Rashi in which Lagna bindu is

> > falling -

> > > > Dhanu

> > > > > > > > > > 2nd Varga - The Hora in which Lagna bindu is

falling -

> > As

> > > > 11

> > > > > > > > degrees

> > > > > > > > > > falls in the 1st half of dhanu - Surya Hora

> > > > > > > > > > 3rd Varga - The drekkana in which Lagna bindu is

> > falling -

> > > > As

> > > > > > 11

> > > > > > > > > > degrees falls in the 2nd 1/3rd of dhanu -

Drekkana is

> > > > Mesha.

> > > > > > > > > > 4th Varga - As 11 degrees falls in the 3rd

> > > > saptamsha ,Lagna

> > > > > > > > saptamsha

> > > > > > > > > > is Kumbha.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Similraly - Lagna navamsha is Karka,Lagna

Trimshamsha

> > is

> > > > > > dhanu.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Thus the purpose of whole exercise was to say that

> > when

> > > > we say

> > > > > > > > > > shadvargas of Lagna or Mars,it does not mean the

> > rashis

> > > > owned

> > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > Lagna or Mars.But the Rashis on towhich they are

> > > > placed,having

> > > > > > > > > > hora,drekkana etc etc.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Vargas of Mars in the 2nd Rashi from karakamsha

too

> > is no

> > > > > > > > differet.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > There are many meanings,that is why Rashi is

called as

> > > > > > > > > > Kshethra /Riksha /havana etc.But i don't think

sage

> > will

> > > > use

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > saword to represent something belonging to same

class.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > For example sage will not use ''sva'' to mean 2nd

as

> > well

> > > > as

> > > > > > > > 3rd.Then

> > > > > > > > > > we cannot interpret.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Similarly Rashi and navamsha will not be

represented

> > > > using the

> > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > word.Rashi/Kshethra/Riksha/Bhvana/Lagna etc are

> > synonyms

> > > > an

> > > > > > ifthey

> > > > > > > > > > are used for navamsha then what is the whole

purpose

> > > > behind

> > > > > > > > defintion.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > On the other hand sva was used for iems from

different

> > > > > > classes.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > This wasin mind while making such a statement.I

will

> > try

> > > > my

> > > > > > best

> > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > polish my style of writing.I accept my

limitations in

> > > > writing.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I have not understood your question or the

intent

> > behind

> > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > Vargas are divisions, within a rasi, ruled by

> > different

> > > > > > grahas.

> > > > > > > > So

> > > > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > one wants t look at Vargas falling in lagna the

shad

> > > > Vargas

> > > > > > will

> > > > > > > > > > mean

> > > > > > > > > > > the rasi equivalent occurring at lagna position

in

> > the 6

> > > > > > > > divisional

> > > > > > > > > > > charts of Rashi, Hora, Dreshkana, Navamsha,

> > > > Dwaadashamsha

> > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamsha. Or at least this is what I have

learnt.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Sages did not use words in vain or context. I

> > agree. But

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > mean they used the words to mean only one thing

> > always.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I never said that the meaning can be changed to

> > suit our

> > > > > > > > > > convenience and

> > > > > > > > > > > I would request you not to attribute such

> > sentiments to

> > > > me.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > However I do say that word are used in different

> > > > contexts to

> > > > > > > > mean

> > > > > > > > > > > different things, especially in Sanskrit texts

of

> > > > Jyotish. I

> > > > > > > > have,

> > > > > > > > > > just

> > > > > > > > > > > a few minutes back use of " Sva " with different

> > meaning

> > > > at

> > > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > > places by Varaha Mihira to you. I hope you do

not

> > also

> > > > > > attribute

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > words that you attributed to me to the venerated

> > Varaha

> > > > > > Mihira.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar,.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Pls tell me what you mean by shadvargas of

> > lagna.How

> > > > do

> > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > find

> > > > > > > > > > > > them.Do you go by ownership or placement

> > > > > > > > > > (Rashi/navamsha/dwadshamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > etc).

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > There are shlokas in Varahamihiras text which

> > > > > > says ,Okarkshe

> > > > > > > > > > > > Purushamshakae.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Which means in Ojarashi and Oja amsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > As per me sages will not use any words out of

> > > > context.If

> > > > > > he

> > > > > > > > wants

> > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > say amsha he will mention it.He will not use

> > Rashi to

> > > > > > mean as

> > > > > > > > > > amsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Ojarkshe is Oja Rashi.Similarly Paparkshe is

Papa

> > > > Rashi.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > If you want to say as per our conveninece we

can

> > > > change

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > > > > > > of riksha/rashi/bhavana/bhavas as navamsha

then i

> > > > cannot

> > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > > > anything.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I can only respect your views.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I will tell you why that happens. You begin

with

> > > > quoting

> > > > > > > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > then give a sutra from Jaimini as being

said by

> > > > > > Parashara.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Interpretation of sutras is not the easiest

of

> > the

> > > > > > things,

> > > > > > > > more

> > > > > > > > > > so

> > > > > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Jaimini's Upadesha sutras. That the sutras

use

> > > > > > KaTaPaYaadi

> > > > > > > > > > > > encryption

> > > > > > > > > > > > > makes them even more difficult to

interpret. I

> > am

> > > > sure

> > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > noticed

> > > > > > > > > > > > > this when Sreenadh interpreted the

KaTaPaYaadi

> > > > Varga in

> > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > wrong

> > > > > > > > > > > > fashion.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Then there is your insistence to let

Sanskrit

> > > > grammar

> > > > > > give

> > > > > > > > a go

> > > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > that can make interpretation of a shloka or

> > sutra

> > > > fit

> > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > proposition.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Any of the Shodasha Vargas of a rasi can be

> > > > referred to

> > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > Varga,

> > > > > > > > > > > > but as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > far as I know in astrology, when one talks

of

> > Varga,

> > > > > > without

> > > > > > > > > > > > qualifying

> > > > > > > > > > > > > it, or Amshas that generally refers to

navamsha

> > or

> > > > > > > > > > Dwadashaamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Another reason that we can not agree, or

seem to

> > > > agree,

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > you are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > reluctant to call a navamsha by the

nomenclature

> > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > rasi.

> > > > > > > > > > > > This

> > > > > > > > > > > > > makes it difficult to convey what I mean to

say

> > in

> > > > > > English

> > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the language of the net and which both of us

> > know.

> > > > Now

> > > > > > > > since you

> > > > > > > > > > > > do not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > want to use the word Mesha navamsha as

Mesha is

> > a

> > > > rashi

> > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > > logic it can not be a navamsha, it becomes

> > > > difficult to

> > > > > > > > convey

> > > > > > > > > > > > what I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > understand by the texts.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I will like to draw your attention to the

> > literal

> > > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi. It means a heap and nothing more. In

> > astrology

> > > > > > since

> > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > encompasses many stars that make up a

nakshatra

> > the

> > > > > > 1/12th

> > > > > > > > > > > > division of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the zodiac is called a Rasi. Or at least

this

> > is my

> > > > > > > > > > understanding

> > > > > > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > reason of using the word rasi for the 1/12th

> > > > division

> > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > > zodiac.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not agree that by Chandra in Guru

Varga it

> > is

> > > > meant

> > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > Varga of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandra is being seen. To me we are talking

> > about is

> > > > > > whether

> > > > > > > > > > > > Chandra is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > falling in the Varga of Guru in which ever

rasi

> > he

> > > > is

> > > > > > > > occupying.

> > > > > > > > > > > > So in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Navamsha we see whether Chandra is occupying

> > Pisces

> > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > Sagittarius

> > > > > > > > > > > > > navamsha. I also do not agree that there are

> > Vargas

> > > > of

> > > > > > > > Chandra

> > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > of any

> > > > > > > > > > > > > planet for that matter. The 16 Vargas that

> > Parashara

> > > > > > talks

> > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > that of a Rasi, beginning from the Rashi

itself.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > If the Vargas are not owned by different

> > planets,

> > > > pray

> > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > > > the sage

> > > > > > > > > > > > > tell us to see occupation of a friend, own

etc.

> > > > Varga to

> > > > > > > > assess

> > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > strength of a planet in the Varga concerned?

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I have interacted with many astrologers of

> > > > yesteryears

> > > > > > (with

> > > > > > > > > > > > respect to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > my age group) and have never found them

> > claiming the

> > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > only lagna and planets.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you insist that sage Parashara gave the

SU.

> > 52.-

> > > > > > " Tatra

> > > > > > > > > > > > bhrigwongaraka

> > > > > > > > > > > > > varge paradarikaha " , perhaps you are

referring

> > to

> > > > some

> > > > > > > > edition

> > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > BPHS

> > > > > > > > > > > > > that I do not have. However I do have that

in

> > the

> > > > > > umpteen

> > > > > > > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > > > > texts on Jaimini that I do have in my

library.

> > And

> > > > by

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > way,

> > > > > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > > > scholars have interpreted that to mean 9th

from

> > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > the 2nd.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not agree that a graha can

simultaneously

> > > > occupy

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars, simultaneously, as is being

> > > > suggested

> > > > > > > > whether in

> > > > > > > > > > > > rasi or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > in any of the Vargas. It could only occupy

one

> > or

> > > > the

> > > > > > other.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I have seen you arguing in favor of looking

at

> > the

> > > > > > > > Shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > grahas Venus and Mars. I would like you to

look

> > at

> > > > all

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > six

> > > > > > > > > > > > charts

> > > > > > > > > > > > > whose Vargas together are referred as

> > Shadvargas and

> > > > > > try to

> > > > > > > > find

> > > > > > > > > > > > out

> > > > > > > > > > > > > whether they do indeed contain the 6 Vargas

of

> > Venus

> > > > > > and 6

> > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars. I am sure that you will find them to

> > contain

> > > > only

> > > > > > 5

> > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > each of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the grahas. Once you confirm this by

looking at

> > the

> > > > 6

> > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > self,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > tell me how one can look at Shadvargas of

Venus

> > or

> > > > Mars

> > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested to be the interpretation of the

sutra

> > that

> > > > > > you are

> > > > > > > > > > > > referring to.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > You may also be interested to know that

> > Parashara

> > > > talks

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > AK

> > > > > > > > > > > > falling in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the Varga of Chandra, Mars or Venus also

having

> > the

> > > > > > roving

> > > > > > > > eye

> > > > > > > > > > on

> > > > > > > > > > > > others

> > > > > > > > > > > > > wives. So the combination of Venus and Mars

> > being

> > > > the

> > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > giving

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the roving eye for other's wives, that you

are

> > > > > > advancing as

> > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > > standalone

> > > > > > > > > > > > > principle, may not, necessarily, be the way

the

> > sage

> > > > > > looked

> > > > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > > > > > their

> > > > > > > > > > > > > interpretation.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Those were written by me.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am very dissappointed to see

that ,inspite

> > of

> > > > > > repeating

> > > > > > > > > > numerus

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > times,you are unable to get what i am

saying.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not talking about rashis lorded by

> > shukra or

> > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > here.I

> > > > > > > > > > am

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > talking about the shadvargas vargas of

mars

> > and

> > > > > > shukra.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pls tell me what is the meaning of

shadvargas

> > or

> > > > > > simply

> > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > lagna.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the rashi in which lagna is

placed.The

> > > > > > navamshaka of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna,Trimshamshaka of Lagna etc.Can we

see

> > any

> > > > > > lordship

> > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > say.Lagna does not own any rashi.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly when we say vargas of Venus -It

> > means

> > > > Rashi

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Venus,Hora,navamshaka,drekkana,trimshamshaka

> > etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shadvarga is never the rashi owned by a

> > > > planet.Then

> > > > > > Lagna

> > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > never

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > have shadvarga.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say,Chandra in

Guru

> > > > Varga - We

> > > > > > > > are not

> > > > > > > > > > > > seeing

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the shadvarga of Guru,but that of

chandra.Is

> > > > chandra

> > > > > > > > placed in

> > > > > > > > > > > > Guru

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rashi?Is Chandra navamshaka in Guru

Rashi.Is

> > > > Chandra

> > > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamshaka in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guru Rashi etc is what we check.If so

chandras

> > > > vargas

> > > > > > > > fall in

> > > > > > > > > > > > guru

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashis or we say chandra is in guruvargas.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the same reason schoplars of

yesteryears

> > > > always

> > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for our natal Lagna and Planets.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand you are taking them as

> > owned by

> > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > planet.Every

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > shadvarga that derive is like that.You may

> > check

> > > > this

> > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > shri

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Narasimha,how he is deriving it for his

> > software.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the same reason Bhrigu and Angara can

have

> > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > together

> > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rashi which is 2nd from Karakamsha.Sage

> > clearly

> > > > talks

> > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > vargas from both.Moreover the next shloka

is

> > > > talking

> > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus together or aspecting the 2nd from

> > > > karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we go by your

> > explanation,we

> > > > > > have to

> > > > > > > > opt

> > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > just one among shukra or Mars which is not

> > > > > > proper.Their

> > > > > > > > Joint

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > influence creates sexual drive.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I request you to kindly read this with

care.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rspect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The below remarks are not from my mail

at

> > all.

> > > > I do

> > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > know

> > > > > > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think I would write that. I am sure you

know

> > > > that

> > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > my

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > style

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of writing at all.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " >From my experience -Mars + Venus

creates

> > > > certin

> > > > > > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why are

you

> > > > going

> > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > owned by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just one of them and that too without a

> > > > planetary

> > > > > > link

> > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > really

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > worrying me.Shri Rath has translated

so,i

> > > > agree.But

> > > > > > i

> > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will

definitely

> > > > correct

> > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > benfit

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of jyotish community. "

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As to why I said they could not be

having

> > their

> > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > together in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi or Bhava does not need any deeper

> > > > explanation.

> > > > > > If

> > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > looking

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at the 2nd from Karakamsha in the rasi

> > chart,

> > > > as you

> > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > right, you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > could not have both Mesha and Vrishabha

or

> > Tula

> > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > Vrishchika

> > > > > > > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd from the Karakamsha, is that not so?

> > > > Similarly

> > > > > > if in

> > > > > > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the 2nd from Karakamsha is to be seen,

the

> > 2nd

> > > > > > could be

> > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > navamshas.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I though you meant so.Because in

> > subsequent

> > > > lines

> > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > see

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and Karakamsha being used for the same

> > > > > > purpose.But if

> > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there are other places where swamsha

is

> > used

> > > > for

> > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagnamsha ,then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i can trust you if you can point me to

> > that.

> > > > This

> > > > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > be a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problem and in no way it will affect

us.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars can ofcourse have their

> > Vargas

> > > > in a

> > > > > > > > single

> > > > > > > > > > > > rashi or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bhava.Venus can have navamsha

there,Mars

> > can

> > > > have

> > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there,Venus can have Trimshamsha

> > there,Mars

> > > > can

> > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there,they both can have drekkana

there

> > etc

> > > > etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus sage is talking about Bhrigu and

> > Angara

> > > > both

> > > > > > (as

> > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > identified gramattically) having varga

> > there

> > > > and

> > > > > > it is

> > > > > > > > > > very

> > > > > > > > > > > > much

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you note the next line -Sage is

talking

> > > > about

> > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > Venus

> > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > joining or aspecting the 2nd from

> > Karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From my experience -Mars + Venus

creates

> > > > certin

> > > > > > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why

are

> > you

> > > > going

> > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > owned by just one of them and that too

> > > > without a

> > > > > > > > planetary

> > > > > > > > > > > > link is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really worrying me.Shri Rath has

> > translated

> > > > so,i

> > > > > > > > > > agree.But i

> > > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will

> > definitely

> > > > > > correct

> > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > > > for the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > benfit of jyotish community.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am surprised as to why you say

so.That

> > they

> > > > > > cannot

> > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > together.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pardeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

40>,

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have never said that I do not

think

> > that

> > > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different where the context demands

so.

> > At

> > > > the

> > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > time I

> > > > > > > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammar can be put to rest to in the

> > name of

> > > > > > > > context,

> > > > > > > > > > > > without

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sound

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course if you want contextual

> > translation

> > > > > > only,

> > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > > one can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > certainly say that the " Meshadi

raashige

> > > > > > swaamshe "

> > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > always be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > translated as " Falling in Mesha

> > navamsha in

> > > > > > Mesha

> > > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > > > > etc. " .

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way " Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka

> > Varge " ,

> > > > that

> > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > mention, does

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean varga of both Venus and mars,

but

> > of

> > > > varga

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > Venus OR

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > due to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the grammar only. varga of two

planets

> > can

> > > > not

> > > > > > fall

> > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bhava/amsha/rasi whether in rasi or

> > > > Navamsha or

> > > > > > any

> > > > > > > > > > other

> > > > > > > > > > > > chart.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Grammatically,what you are saying

is

> > also

> > > > > > true.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But Jyotish defintions play a

> > preceding

> > > > role

> > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > choosing

> > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammatical meaning.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example one meaning of

> > labhe ,Swamshe

> > > > etc

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > 11th

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But if we go by that we will

> > definitely

> > > > > > translate

> > > > > > > > > > > > swamshe in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > meshadi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashige as ''in Swamsha'',thereby

> > > > translating

> > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > full

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart.This as you too agree,then

> > cannot

> > > > pass

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > test,of

> > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > subsequent shlokas.I understand

gladly

> > > > that

> > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > too

> > > > > > > > > > > > agree that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha and karakamsha are the

same.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So the context decides

plural/singular

> > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > necessarily

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the ''E''

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as you have rightly mentioned.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But in essence what i want to say

> > is ''E''

> > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > always

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean ''in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the'' as you have

> > interpreted.Labheshe is

> > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > example.Karake

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus it can very well mean Varga

of

> > > > Shukra and

> > > > > > > > Mars-

> > > > > > > > > > > > which can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > six vargas or one varga.(Not

lordship)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra -(There) In the second from

> > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga or Vargas of Venus and Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now why should we need two

> > qualifiesrs for

> > > > > > > > destination

> > > > > > > > > > (1)

> > > > > > > > > > > > In

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from karakamsha 2)in the vargas

of?)-

> > if

> > > > we had

> > > > > > > > another

> > > > > > > > > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your interpretation is right.That

> > planet

> > > > will

> > > > > > > > answer

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > question -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who is in the vargas of ?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly - Swamshad dhane Shukrar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Swamshad dhane is already

pointing to

> > > > > > destination-

> > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > need

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > another ''in the'' vargas of.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say in

the 2nd

> > > > from

> > > > > > > > > > karakamsha if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mars and venus are present,it

fits in

> > > > > > > > > > > > grammatically.Moreover

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i had

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentioned rashi lordship without

> > planetary

> > > > > > link

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (placement/amsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is too general.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In

 

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > 40>,

> > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I may be wrong but the " E " by

itself

> > > > does

> > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > point

> > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > word Shadvarga indicating 6

Vargas

> > that

> > > > is

> > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > group

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (though it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more than one unit) and

so " Varge " ,

> > the

> > > > > > > > singular is

> > > > > > > > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " E " means " in " . I would be

happy if

> > an

> > > > > > example

> > > > > > > > > > > > of " Varge "

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plural

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can be given.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not at all think that

Vargaka

> > or

> > > > Varga

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > singular and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargake

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge is plural, at all. Both

the

> > > > manner of

> > > > > > > > using

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > indicates singular. it is no use

> > > > projecting

> > > > > > > > what is

> > > > > > > > > > > > clearly

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saptami

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vibhakti and singular as being a

> > plural

> > > > > > word. If

> > > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dvivachana it may

become " VargyoH "

> > > > > > or " VargeSu "

> > > > > > > > (for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bahuvachan)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge. Perhaps some Sanskrit

> > scholar on

> > > > the

> > > > > > list

> > > > > > > > > > would

> > > > > > > > > > > > like

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > comment

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on this.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, much as I would like it to

> > resolve,

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > issue

> > > > > > > > > > > > remains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unresolved.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will give you a relevant

> > example to

> > > > > > explain

> > > > > > > > how

> > > > > > > > > > > > VarGE

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > context of plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna Shad-VargaKE - Is

pointing

> > to

> > > > all

> > > > > > > > vargas -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plural.You

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > may

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > note

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that the grammatical ending is

> > > > with ''E''

> > > > > > > > showing

> > > > > > > > > > > > plurals

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expressed with such an ending.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now from Vrishamsha''Ka'' and

> > Tulamsha

> > > > > > > > example we

> > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > conclude

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VargaKA and VarGA can be used

for

> > the

> > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > purpose in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ekavachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > singular form and VargaKE and

> > VarGE

> > > > can be

> > > > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bahuvachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plural form.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope this may help us in

> > resolving

> > > > our

> > > > > > > > issue.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------

----

> > ----

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > > > > > > -----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this

incoming

> > > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus

Database:

> > > > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this

message

> > have

> > > > been

> > > > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -

----

> > ----

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > > > > > > -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

> > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message

have

> > been

> > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----

----

> > ----

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have

been

> > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------

----

> > ----

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > -------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > -------------

----

> > ----

> > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

269.10.0/886 -

> > > > Release

> > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > -----------------

----

> > ----

> > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/890 -

> > Release

> > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

removed]

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > ---------------------

----

> > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/890 -

Release

> > > > Date:

> > > > > > 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandrashekhar ji

 

If you remember our first discussion,which is present in the

archives,you were only mentioning about shukra and saturn in

paraspara amsha and aspecting each other.You had added that these are

aspects in Trimshamsha chakra.

 

I had then quoted the second line which points to Lagna being that of

Shukra and its navamsha in ghata rashi.

 

For which your reply was we are looking into different texts.

 

You have only quoted the 2nd line from Saravali.

 

The full shloka in Saravali is as follows -

Shukra Sithau yadi paraspara bhaga samsthau

shaukre cha drishti pathagavudaye ghatamshe

 

Thus the first line does not contain any aspect mentioned.How can we

say that the first line is stand alone.Do you say if Shukra and

Saturn are in each others amsha a lady will behave like this.

The second line makes it complete.The lagna should be that of

shukra,saturn and venus should aspect each other,and lagnamsha should

fall in Ghatamsha.

 

Thus Dashadhyayi kara is crystal clear on what Saravali is

saying.Atleast for this shloka i feel there is no ambiguity needed.

 

Respect

Pradeep

 

Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> If Dashaadhyaayi thinks Saravali is a standard text to rely upon (

as

> you have quoted a reference therein quoting Saravali to support

some

> interpretation) why say that other concepts in Saravali are wrong?

> Saravali says " Shaukre ca drishtipathagaavudaye ghataamshe " etc.

> indicating the necessity of exchange of amshas and mutual aspect

between

> Shukra and Shani as concurrent condition for the first yoga to

fructify.

> And then goes on to say that if for a lagna having rasi of Shukra

and

> navamsha of Shani similar results would ensue. GhataaMshe has been

> interpreted as the amsha of Shani and not merely amsha of Kumbha by

many

> translators.

>

> I can not comment on the interpretation of Dashaadhyaayikar of the

> shloka but the shloka from Brihat Jataka that I have also says

> " driksamsthaavasitasito parasparaamshe shoke vaa yadi ghata

> raashisambhavoMshaH. " followed by the next line that I did not find

> necessary to quote as it does not talk about the yoga but only the

> results, which you have already quoted and I felt may not be

necessary

> to post on line.

>

> That there are two distinct yogas is also not new to translators of

> Brihat jataka. Since you accept that the first line does say about

> occupation of each others amsha AND aspect on each other is indeed

> covered in the first line, the reluctance to accept aspects in

specific

> cases is something that I am not able to understand.

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

>

>

>

>

> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >

> > I can clearly understand your position.Especially as you have

> > said,the texts that we are referring to are different.Here comes

the

> > importance of Dashadhyayi.After my explanation you can also see

that

> > it is not only dashadhyayi ,but Saravali as well is having the

same

> > opinion on the shloka explained below.

> >

> > As i have mentioned yesterday,dashadhyayi is not covering just the

> > first 10 chapters as the name suggests.For example let me take a

> > chapter towards the end ,chapter 22-Sthree Jataka Adhyaya.

> >

> > Thalakkulathu Govinda Bhattathiri has given interpretations,for

all

> > the shlokas from 1 through 16,except shloka 13, while interpreting

> > chapters 1 through 10. Shloka 13 as you can see is pretty straight

> > forward.

> >

> > Now let us take the shloka which as per you is referring

> > to ''Trimshamsha Chakra'' with aspects therein.Firstly the results

> > for planets being placed in rashis belonging to Mesha onwards,and

> > within that Trimshamshas belonging to Mars onwards is explained

and

> > ends by shloka 6.

> >

> > Now let us take

> >

> > ''Driksamstha VasithaSithau Parasparamshe

> > Shaukre Va yadi Ghata Rashi Sambhavomsha''

> > Next 2 lines explains the result.

> >

> > As per you,there is only a reference regarding Venus and Saturn

> > aspecting each other and also in each others Amsha.This is covered

> > in the first line.My worry is where has the second line gone in

the

> > text that you are having.Either it was not interpreted or it was

> > inadvertently got missed out from printing.

> >

> > Now Dashadhyayi says -

> >

> > Driksamsthau ithyadi Yoga dvayam - Two Yogas.First one is

> > corresponding to the first line as we have seen.

> >

> > Shaukre Rashau Yadi Kumbhamshe Udethi ..Thatha dvitheeyam - the

> > second.Meaning ,The Ascendant should be either Tula or Vrishabha

and

> > it should have Kumbhamsha(Kumbha is Ghata - Ghata Rashi

> > Sambhavomsha).

> >

> > Now the author says, as per some these two can be taken as one

yoga

> > as well(Saravali too says so).

> >

> > Parasparamshagatha Vasitha Sithou Paraspara Drishtau Shaukre

> > Rashavudayathi Kumbhamshakashcha Bhavathi Yadee - then the

> > result.And the author says -T hatha Cha Saravalyam.And quotes

> > corresponding shloka from Saravali,where again the said line is

> > present(sanskrit).Thus it says - For a Lady to have such a strong

> > sexual desire - Purusha Veshadhari(One dressign up as a man -thus

> > lesbian),her ascendant should belong to Venus and the amsha of her

> > ascendant should fall in Kumbha Rashi,and in her chart Saturn and

> > Venus should aspect each other and also have exchange of amshas.

> >

> > Thus you see,in either case there is a line which is missing in

your

> > book,which helps us to understand that it is not a varga chakra.I

> > dont know how it happened.

> >

> > Thus if Dashadhyayi was not there,then i would have also not got

any

> > opportunity to understand this in such detail.This is the beauty

of

> > this text and as you know without any value ParashnaMarga will not

> > praise it with such a high regard.The rest of the text is great

and

> > explains every concept with authority,quoting many sources.

> >

> > I consider you with great regard(Gurusthana) and holds respect

> > towards your views and analysis.You may kindly understand that,i

> > will not misquote and misrepresent,especially when the subject is

> > Jyotish.If some others in this list is having mistrust,they should

> > understand that i am not the only keralite living in this universe

> > and they can seek help from others to see if i am cheating.I have

no

> > hatred towards their words.If it brings happiness to them let them

> > continue with false allegations.

> >

> > I will prepare the paper and then would request your good self to

> > review.I am so thankful that you have tested me with tough

questions

> > and logic,which has helped me to learn more.

> >

> > Respect

> > Pradeep

> >

> >

> > <%40>, " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > Purna drishte Purna Yogam Ardha Drishte ardhameva cha

> > > Pada drishte Padayogamiti gyeyam kramat phalam.

> > >

> > > Is mentioned and hence the aspects are not about Rashi drishti.

> > >

> > > Now as i have mentioned in the past,though the name is

> > > dashadhyayi,the author covers shlokas,from most of the chapters

as

> > > and when he finds some interrelationship or link.This i consider

> > as a

> > > real blessing.Now how amshakas are interpreted,has been

> > > demonstrated ,for numerous contexts,and thus forming a guideline

> > for

> > > other shloka interpretations.

> > >

> > > I will see the shlokas,and will write back.

> > >

> > > Respect

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > Transits are to be seen no doubt from the rasis synonymous to

> > the

> > > > navamsha rasis, but when it is sphuta it is of the navamshesha

> > and

> > > not

> > > > the rasis. There is a difference between the two.

> > > >

> > > > I have already said I do not consider aspects in D-charts,

> > unless

> > > > specifically mentioned in some yogas, and also that barring

> > > navamsha

> > > > charts, in other varga charts I look at rashi aspects. That

does

> > > not

> > > > mean I should close my eyes to what is written in other

> > respected

> > > texts.

> > > > That only means I look at charts from a different angle.

> > > >

> > > > There is nothing in the lagna shadvargake shloka to indicate

> > graded

> > > > aspects and so it does not rule out rashi drishti at all. Ans

> > since

> > > you

> > > > have quoted both Parashara and Jaimini you should know that

> > rashi

> > > > drishtis are valid in Parashara too and exclusively so in

> > Jaimini.

> > > >

> > > > Your translation and mine of the shlokas differ and that is

why

> > > there is

> > > > no agreement. If you expect Dashaadhyaayi to give divisional

> > charts

> > > and

> > > > their interpretations, that is not possible as Varaha Mihira

on

> > > whose

> > > > work it is only a commentary does not speak of it and it is

> > > commentary

> > > > on only 10 of the 18 adhayaayas of Brihat jataka. If you read

> > > Brihat

> > > > jataka carefully, you will see reference o aspects in

> > Trimshamsha

> > > there.

> > > > Since you have many times claimed superiority of Dashaadhyaayi

> > over

> > > many

> > > > of the more ancient and respected classics, I find it strange

as

> > to

> > > why

> > > > you do not want to accept what is said in the original text on

> > > which

> > > > Dashaadhyaayi is only a commentary and that too on 10

adhyaayas

> > as

> > > the

> > > > name suggests (that does not, of course, make it any less

> > > respectable).

> > > > There are many references to planets being placed in a

navamsha,

> > > which

> > > > is not identical with the rasi whose name the navamsha enjoys,

> > and

> > > the

> > > > results from them in the 21st adhyaaya. How do you map back

such

> > a

> > > > navamsha to the rasi and what should be the logic? You also

see

> > > > reference to Guru occupying own Trimshamsha, irrespective of

> > rasi

> > > in the

> > > > same adhayaaya. There are too many references like this to

> > question

> > > the

> > > > theory that the amshas need always be mapped back to identical

> > rasi

> > > in

> > > > rasi chart.

> > > >

> > > > Could you tell why this reluctance to accept Varaha Mihira?

> > > >

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > >

> > > > > Meshamshe, Vrishamshe Transit results can be seen from Mesha

> > and

> > > > > Vrishabha rashis.Thus you are aware of what i am

> > saying.Moreover

> > > we

> > > > > have seen paparkshe.we have seen meshadi rashige swamshe.we

> > have

> > > seen

> > > > > that bhrigwonkaraka varge ,as per your understanding cannot

> > > satisfy

> > > > > both mars and venus.The very next shloka is talking about

mars

> > and

> > > > > venus yuti or aspecting.

> > > > >

> > > > > Now we can forget all these as you are not williing to

accept

> > > > > rashi,riksha etc as valid reasoning.

> > > > >

> > > > > We have seen Lagna shadvargake shloka with aspectual

> > > grades,proving

> > > > > that they ae not rashi drishtis.Couple of days back and many

> > > times in

> > > > > the past,i have heard from you that you don't support

aspects

> > in

> > > > > Vargas.

> > > > >

> > > > > If you still have the sam views,then to understand

shadvargake

> > > > > shloka,we have to see planets aspecting lagna in ''six

> > charts''.As

> > > > > lagna can fall in any rashi,you have to accept aspects fully

> > in

> > > all

> > > > > Varga charts.

> > > > >

> > > > > This is relevant to our discussion as lagnamsha is also

part of

> > > > > shadvargas of lagna.

> > > > >

> > > > > As you are aware ,the BPHS translator too has expressed his

> > > concern.

> > > > >

> > > > > Regds

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > How could I think shadvarga of lagna is shadvarga of

rashi?

> > > Lagna

> > > > > is the

> > > > > > point on the eastern horizon at the time of birth of a

> > jataka.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > There is no dispute about what is lagnamsha and what is

> > > karakamsha

> > > > > at

> > > > > > all. At the same time when reference is to a graha

falling in

> > > > > Lagnamsha

> > > > > > it refers to the navamsha rasi (or sector ruled by one of

> > the

> > > rasis

> > > > > of a

> > > > > > planet, barring Sun and Chandra if you like it that way)

in

> > > which

> > > > > the

> > > > > > lagnamsha falls. Now that being so where is the shubha

graha

> > > > > supposed to

> > > > > > fall in the shloka I quoted? Same with the Shubh graha in

> > > > > Karakamsha and

> > > > > > needing drishti of shubha graha on it. It is easy to say

that

> > > > > these

> > > > > > need to be seen in rasi, but for lack of the reference to

> > rasi,

> > > > > there,

> > > > > > there is no reason to assume that it does not refer to

> > navamsha

> > > > > rasi.

> > > > > > The reference to grahas in " Meshaamshe " , " Vrishabhaamshe "

> > etc

> > > are

> > > > > quite

> > > > > > clear, in BPHS.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Of course Yes,you are correct.Varga is found for this

> > bindu

> > > and in

> > > > > > > the case of planets their degree decides.The rest you

have

> > > stated

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > also as per definition.My point was made under the

> > impression

> > > that

> > > > > > > you have a view that,shadvarga of Lagna is shadvarga of

a

> > > > > rashi.If so

> > > > > > > it is not.Shad varga is found for Lagna bindu.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The full Rashi/Kshethra in which Lagna bindu falls

becomes

> > its

> > > > > first

> > > > > > > Varga.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The Translation is entiterely correct and no one can

> > > > > contradict.This

> > > > > > > is similar to one planet aspecting shadvargas of lagna.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Lagnamsha is already covered in the shadvargas of

> > > > > lagna.Karakamsha is

> > > > > > > similar too.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Now let us see it on a chart.Karkamasha is in

> > Dhanu.Jupiter is

> > > > > placed

> > > > > > > in Mithuna Rashi.Shubha graha is aspecting Karakamsha

Lagna

> > > > > > > (Rashi).Similarly Lagnamsha.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > You are already aware of the rules for aspects.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I see your point of view. anyway even within

shadvargas

> > we

> > > look

> > > > > for

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > degree of a planet falling within a certain span of

> > degrees

> > > and

> > > > > not

> > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > particular bindu.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I agree that rashi is a Varga and my question is if

one

> > can

> > > > > look at

> > > > > > > > aspects in one Varga why not in other Vargas? I am

sure

> > you

> > > know

> > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > personally I use navamsha to find only the strength of

> > > grahas,

> > > > > but

> > > > > > > there

> > > > > > > > is no reason to rule out aspects in Navamshas or other

> > > charts

> > > > > > > totally.

> > > > > > > > One of the raj yogas mentioned by Parashara talks of

> > aspect

> > > of

> > > > > > > shubha

> > > > > > > > grahas on the karakamsha and Lagnamsha which should

also

> > be

> > > > > > > tenanted by

> > > > > > > > Shubha grahas, leaving no doubt as to where the

aspects

> > are

> > > to

> > > > > be

> > > > > > > seen.

> > > > > > > > And for the record the translation to that effect is

by

> > an

> > > > > eminent

> > > > > > > > astrologer who was Professor of astrology in Banaras

> > Hindu

> > > > > > > University.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Lagna as a bindu was mentioned for driving home the

> > > shadvarga

> > > > > > > > > calculations,if any members were having doubts.For

> > > shadvarga

> > > > > > > > > calculation of planets too we need the bindu or

degree

> > of

> > > a

> > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > > within a rashi, as you are aware.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > We have to look at Rashis.This is so because Rashi

> > (one 30

> > > > > degree

> > > > > > > > > sector ) is the first varga.As this Varga is

> > synonymous

> > > with

> > > > > Bhava

> > > > > > > > > houses are analysed w.r to Rashis.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>,

Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > If lagna is a bindu a you propose, and nothing

more,

> > > then

> > > > > how

> > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > indicate an entire rasi? Now if this is correct,

and

> > > > > technically

> > > > > > > > > it is,

> > > > > > > > > > then by your reckoning there is no need to look at

> > rasis

> > > > > too. Is

> > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > what you mean to say?

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > If shadvargas are not related to the portion

falling

> > in

> > > the

> > > > > > > lagna

> > > > > > > > > rasis,

> > > > > > > > > > which holds the degree of lagna Madhya, then it

> > appears

> > > we

> > > > > must

> > > > > > > ask

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > sages to redefine Vargas. I doubt they need our

> > advise.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > There was a purpose.I just wanted to explain it

to

> > the

> > > > > > > members if

> > > > > > > > > > > some of them are not sure on what shadvarga of

> > lagna

> > > is

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > how it

> > > > > > > > > > > is calculated.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > As you have said Vargas are divisions of a

> > rashi.But

> > > > > > > shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > > Lagna is not the Vargas falling in Lagna.Here

> > lagna is

> > > > > not a

> > > > > > > > > > > rashi,but a bindu.Vargas are found from a

> > degree.The

> > > > > degree

> > > > > > > of a

> > > > > > > > > > > planet or degree of lagna.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > As you may know we do notneed six charts to

> > dtermine

> > > > > > > shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > > lagna.All we need is the degree of lagna and the

> > rashi

> > > > > rising.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Let us take an example.Lagna is at 11 degrees in

> > > dhanu.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Let us find the shadvargas of Lagna with th help

> > of

> > > rising

> > > > > > > rashi

> > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > degree.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > 1st Varga - The Rashi in which Lagna bindu is

> > > falling -

> > > > > Dhanu

> > > > > > > > > > > 2nd Varga - The Hora in which Lagna bindu is

> > falling -

> > > As

> > > > > 11

> > > > > > > > > degrees

> > > > > > > > > > > falls in the 1st half of dhanu - Surya Hora

> > > > > > > > > > > 3rd Varga - The drekkana in which Lagna bindu is

> > > falling -

> > > > > As

> > > > > > > 11

> > > > > > > > > > > degrees falls in the 2nd 1/3rd of dhanu -

Drekkana

> > is

> > > > > Mesha.

> > > > > > > > > > > 4th Varga - As 11 degrees falls in the 3rd

> > > > > saptamsha ,Lagna

> > > > > > > > > saptamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > is Kumbha.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Similraly - Lagna navamsha is Karka,Lagna

> > Trimshamsha

> > > is

> > > > > > > dhanu.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Thus the purpose of whole exercise was to say

that

> > > when

> > > > > we say

> > > > > > > > > > > shadvargas of Lagna or Mars,it does not mean the

> > > rashis

> > > > > owned

> > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > Lagna or Mars.But the Rashis on towhich they are

> > > > > placed,having

> > > > > > > > > > > hora,drekkana etc etc.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Vargas of Mars in the 2nd Rashi from karakamsha

> > too

> > > is no

> > > > > > > > > differet.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > There are many meanings,that is why Rashi is

> > called as

> > > > > > > > > > > Kshethra /Riksha /havana etc.But i don't think

> > sage

> > > will

> > > > > use

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > saword to represent something belonging to same

> > class.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > For example sage will not use ''sva'' to mean

2nd

> > as

> > > well

> > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > 3rd.Then

> > > > > > > > > > > we cannot interpret.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Similarly Rashi and navamsha will not be

> > represented

> > > > > using the

> > > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > word.Rashi/Kshethra/Riksha/Bhvana/Lagna etc are

> > > synonyms

> > > > > an

> > > > > > > ifthey

> > > > > > > > > > > are used for navamsha then what is the whole

> > purpose

> > > > > behind

> > > > > > > > > defintion.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand sva was used for iems from

> > different

> > > > > > > classes.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > This wasin mind while making such a statement.I

> > will

> > > try

> > > > > my

> > > > > > > best

> > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > polish my style of writing.I accept my

limitations

> > in

> > > > > writing.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I have not understood your question or the

> > intent

> > > behind

> > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas are divisions, within a rasi, ruled by

> > > different

> > > > > > > grahas.

> > > > > > > > > So

> > > > > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > > one wants t look at Vargas falling in lagna

the

> > shad

> > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > will

> > > > > > > > > > > mean

> > > > > > > > > > > > the rasi equivalent occurring at lagna

position

> > in

> > > the 6

> > > > > > > > > divisional

> > > > > > > > > > > > charts of Rashi, Hora, Dreshkana, Navamsha,

> > > > > Dwaadashamsha

> > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamsha. Or at least this is what I have

> > learnt.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Sages did not use words in vain or context. I

> > > agree. But

> > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > mean they used the words to mean only one

thing

> > > always.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I never said that the meaning can be changed

to

> > > suit our

> > > > > > > > > > > convenience and

> > > > > > > > > > > > I would request you not to attribute such

> > > sentiments to

> > > > > me.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > However I do say that word are used in

different

> > > > > contexts to

> > > > > > > > > mean

> > > > > > > > > > > > different things, especially in Sanskrit

texts of

> > > > > Jyotish. I

> > > > > > > > > have,

> > > > > > > > > > > just

> > > > > > > > > > > > a few minutes back use of " Sva " with different

> > > meaning

> > > > > at

> > > > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > > > places by Varaha Mihira to you. I hope you do

> > not

> > > also

> > > > > > > attribute

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > words that you attributed to me to the

venerated

> > > Varaha

> > > > > > > Mihira.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar,.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pls tell me what you mean by shadvargas of

> > > lagna.How

> > > > > do

> > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > find

> > > > > > > > > > > > > them.Do you go by ownership or placement

> > > > > > > > > > > (Rashi/navamsha/dwadshamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > etc).

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > There are shlokas in Varahamihiras text

which

> > > > > > > says ,Okarkshe

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Purushamshakae.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Which means in Ojarashi and Oja amsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > As per me sages will not use any words out

of

> > > > > context.If

> > > > > > > he

> > > > > > > > > wants

> > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > say amsha he will mention it.He will not use

> > > Rashi to

> > > > > > > mean as

> > > > > > > > > > > amsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ojarkshe is Oja Rashi.Similarly Paparkshe is

> > Papa

> > > > > Rashi.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you want to say as per our conveninece we

> > can

> > > > > change

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > > > > > > > of riksha/rashi/bhavana/bhavas as navamsha

> > then i

> > > > > cannot

> > > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > > > > anything.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I can only respect your views.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will tell you why that happens. You

begin

> > with

> > > > > quoting

> > > > > > > > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > then give a sutra from Jaimini as being

said

> > by

> > > > > > > Parashara.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Interpretation of sutras is not the

easiest

> > of

> > > the

> > > > > > > things,

> > > > > > > > > more

> > > > > > > > > > > so

> > > > > > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jaimini's Upadesha sutras. That the sutras

> > use

> > > > > > > KaTaPaYaadi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > encryption

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > makes them even more difficult to

interpret.

> > I

> > > am

> > > > > sure

> > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > noticed

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this when Sreenadh interpreted the

> > KaTaPaYaadi

> > > > > Varga in

> > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > wrong

> > > > > > > > > > > > > fashion.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then there is your insistence to let

Sanskrit

> > > > > grammar

> > > > > > > give

> > > > > > > > > a go

> > > > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that can make interpretation of a shloka

or

> > > sutra

> > > > > fit

> > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > > proposition.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any of the Shodasha Vargas of a rasi can

be

> > > > > referred to

> > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > Varga,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > but as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > far as I know in astrology, when one talks

> > of

> > > Varga,

> > > > > > > without

> > > > > > > > > > > > > qualifying

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it, or Amshas that generally refers to

> > navamsha

> > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > Dwadashaamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another reason that we can not agree, or

> > seem to

> > > > > agree,

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > you are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > reluctant to call a navamsha by the

> > nomenclature

> > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > rasi.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > This

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > makes it difficult to convey what I mean

to

> > say

> > > in

> > > > > > > English

> > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the language of the net and which both of

us

> > > know.

> > > > > Now

> > > > > > > > > since you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > do not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > want to use the word Mesha navamsha as

Mesha

> > is

> > > a

> > > > > rashi

> > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > logic it can not be a navamsha, it becomes

> > > > > difficult to

> > > > > > > > > convey

> > > > > > > > > > > > > what I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > understand by the texts.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will like to draw your attention to the

> > > literal

> > > > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi. It means a heap and nothing more. In

> > > astrology

> > > > > > > since

> > > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > encompasses many stars that make up a

> > nakshatra

> > > the

> > > > > > > 1/12th

> > > > > > > > > > > > > division of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the zodiac is called a Rasi. Or at least

> > this

> > > is my

> > > > > > > > > > > understanding

> > > > > > > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason of using the word rasi for the

1/12th

> > > > > division

> > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > zodiac.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not agree that by Chandra in Guru

Varga

> > it

> > > is

> > > > > meant

> > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandra is being seen. To me we are

talking

> > > about is

> > > > > > > whether

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandra is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > falling in the Varga of Guru in which ever

> > rasi

> > > he

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > occupying.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > So in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Navamsha we see whether Chandra is

occupying

> > > Pisces

> > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > Sagittarius

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > navamsha. I also do not agree that there

are

> > > Vargas

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > Chandra

> > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > of any

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > planet for that matter. The 16 Vargas that

> > > Parashara

> > > > > > > talks

> > > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that of a Rasi, beginning from the Rashi

> > itself.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the Vargas are not owned by different

> > > planets,

> > > > > pray

> > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the sage

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > tell us to see occupation of a friend, own

> > etc.

> > > > > Varga to

> > > > > > > > > assess

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > strength of a planet in the Varga

concerned?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have interacted with many astrologers of

> > > > > yesteryears

> > > > > > > (with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > respect to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > my age group) and have never found them

> > > claiming the

> > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > only lagna and planets.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you insist that sage Parashara gave the

> > SU.

> > > 52.-

> > > > > > > " Tatra

> > > > > > > > > > > > > bhrigwongaraka

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > varge paradarikaha " , perhaps you are

> > referring

> > > to

> > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > edition

> > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > BPHS

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that I do not have. However I do have that

> > in

> > > the

> > > > > > > umpteen

> > > > > > > > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > texts on Jaimini that I do have in my

> > library.

> > > And

> > > > > by

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > way,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > scholars have interpreted that to mean 9th

> > from

> > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the 2nd.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not agree that a graha can

> > simultaneously

> > > > > occupy

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars, simultaneously, as is

being

> > > > > suggested

> > > > > > > > > whether in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in any of the Vargas. It could only occupy

> > one

> > > or

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > other.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have seen you arguing in favor of

looking

> > at

> > > the

> > > > > > > > > Shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > grahas Venus and Mars. I would like you to

> > look

> > > at

> > > > > all

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > six

> > > > > > > > > > > > > charts

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > whose Vargas together are referred as

> > > Shadvargas and

> > > > > > > try to

> > > > > > > > > find

> > > > > > > > > > > > > out

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > whether they do indeed contain the 6

Vargas

> > of

> > > Venus

> > > > > > > and 6

> > > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars. I am sure that you will find them to

> > > contain

> > > > > only

> > > > > > > 5

> > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > each of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the grahas. Once you confirm this by

looking

> > at

> > > the

> > > > > 6

> > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > > self,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > tell me how one can look at Shadvargas of

> > Venus

> > > or

> > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested to be the interpretation of the

> > sutra

> > > that

> > > > > > > you are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > referring to.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > You may also be interested to know that

> > > Parashara

> > > > > talks

> > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > AK

> > > > > > > > > > > > > falling in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Varga of Chandra, Mars or Venus also

> > having

> > > the

> > > > > > > roving

> > > > > > > > > eye

> > > > > > > > > > > on

> > > > > > > > > > > > > others

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wives. So the combination of Venus and

Mars

> > > being

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > giving

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the roving eye for other's wives, that you

> > are

> > > > > > > advancing as

> > > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > standalone

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > principle, may not, necessarily, be the

way

> > the

> > > sage

> > > > > > > looked

> > > > > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > > > > > > their

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > interpretation.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Those were written by me.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am very dissappointed to see

> > that ,inspite

> > > of

> > > > > > > repeating

> > > > > > > > > > > numerus

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > times,you are unable to get what i am

> > saying.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not talking about rashis lorded by

> > > shukra or

> > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > here.I

> > > > > > > > > > > am

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > talking about the shadvargas vargas of

> > mars

> > > and

> > > > > > > shukra.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pls tell me what is the meaning of

> > shadvargas

> > > or

> > > > > > > simply

> > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lagna.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the rashi in which lagna is

> > placed.The

> > > > > > > navamshaka of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna,Trimshamshaka of Lagna etc.Can we

> > see

> > > any

> > > > > > > lordship

> > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > say.Lagna does not own any rashi.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly when we say vargas of Venus -

It

> > > means

> > > > > Rashi

> > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > Venus,Hora,navamshaka,drekkana,trimshamshaka

> > > etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shadvarga is never the rashi owned by a

> > > > > planet.Then

> > > > > > > Lagna

> > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > never

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have shadvarga.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say,Chandra in

Guru

> > > > > Varga - We

> > > > > > > > > are not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > seeing

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the shadvarga of Guru,but that of

> > chandra.Is

> > > > > chandra

> > > > > > > > > placed in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Guru

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rashi?Is Chandra navamshaka in Guru

> > Rashi.Is

> > > > > Chandra

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamshaka in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guru Rashi etc is what we check.If so

> > chandras

> > > > > vargas

> > > > > > > > > fall in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > guru

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashis or we say chandra is in

guruvargas.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the same reason schoplars of

> > yesteryears

> > > > > always

> > > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for our natal Lagna and Planets.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand you are taking them as

> > > owned by

> > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > planet.Every

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > shadvarga that derive is like that.You

may

> > > check

> > > > > this

> > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > shri

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Narasimha,how he is deriving it for his

> > > software.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the same reason Bhrigu and Angara

can

> > have

> > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > together

> > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rashi which is 2nd from Karakamsha.Sage

> > > clearly

> > > > > talks

> > > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vargas from both.Moreover the next

shloka

> > is

> > > > > talking

> > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus together or aspecting the 2nd from

> > > > > karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we go by your

> > > explanation,we

> > > > > > > have to

> > > > > > > > > opt

> > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just one among shukra or Mars which is

not

> > > > > > > proper.Their

> > > > > > > > > Joint

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > influence creates sexual drive.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I request you to kindly read this with

> > care.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rspect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The below remarks are not from my mail

> > at

> > > all.

> > > > > I do

> > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > know

> > > > > > > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think I would write that. I am sure

you

> > know

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > my

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > style

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of writing at all.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " >From my experience -Mars + Venus

> > creates

> > > > > certin

> > > > > > > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why

are

> > you

> > > > > going

> > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > owned by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just one of them and that too without

a

> > > > > planetary

> > > > > > > link

> > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > really

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > worrying me.Shri Rath has translated

so,i

> > > > > agree.But

> > > > > > > i

> > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will

> > definitely

> > > > > correct

> > > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > benfit

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of jyotish community. "

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As to why I said they could not be

> > having

> > > their

> > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > together in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi or Bhava does not need any deeper

> > > > > explanation.

> > > > > > > If

> > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > looking

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at the 2nd from Karakamsha in the rasi

> > > chart,

> > > > > as you

> > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > right, you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > could not have both Mesha and

Vrishabha

> > or

> > > Tula

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > Vrishchika

> > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd from the Karakamsha, is that not

so?

> > > > > Similarly

> > > > > > > if in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the 2nd from Karakamsha is to be seen,

> > the

> > > 2nd

> > > > > > > could be

> > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > navamshas.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I though you meant so.Because in

> > > subsequent

> > > > > lines

> > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > see

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and Karakamsha being used for the

same

> > > > > > > purpose.But if

> > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there are other places where swamsha

> > is

> > > used

> > > > > for

> > > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagnamsha ,then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i can trust you if you can point me

to

> > > that.

> > > > > This

> > > > > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > be a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problem and in no way it will affect

> > us.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars can ofcourse have

their

> > > Vargas

> > > > > in a

> > > > > > > > > single

> > > > > > > > > > > > > rashi or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bhava.Venus can have navamsha

> > there,Mars

> > > can

> > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there,Venus can have Trimshamsha

> > > there,Mars

> > > > > can

> > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there,they both can have drekkana

> > there

> > > etc

> > > > > etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus sage is talking about Bhrigu

and

> > > Angara

> > > > > both

> > > > > > > (as

> > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > identified gramattically) having

varga

> > > there

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > it is

> > > > > > > > > > > very

> > > > > > > > > > > > > much

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you note the next line -Sage is

> > talking

> > > > > about

> > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > Venus

> > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > joining or aspecting the 2nd from

> > > Karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From my experience -Mars + Venus

> > creates

> > > > > certin

> > > > > > > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why

> > are

> > > you

> > > > > going

> > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > owned by just one of them and that

too

> > > > > without a

> > > > > > > > > planetary

> > > > > > > > > > > > > link is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really worrying me.Shri Rath has

> > > translated

> > > > > so,i

> > > > > > > > > > > agree.But i

> > > > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will

> > > definitely

> > > > > > > correct

> > > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > > > > for the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > benfit of jyotish community.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am surprised as to why you say

> > so.That

> > > they

> > > > > > > cannot

> > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > together.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pardeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > 40>,

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have never said that I do not

> > think

> > > that

> > > > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different where the context

demands

> > so.

> > > At

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > time I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammar can be put to rest to in

the

> > > name of

> > > > > > > > > context,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > without

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sound

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course if you want contextual

> > > translation

> > > > > > > only,

> > > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > one can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > certainly say that the " Meshadi

> > raashige

> > > > > > > swaamshe "

> > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > always be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > translated as " Falling in Mesha

> > > navamsha in

> > > > > > > Mesha

> > > > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > etc. " .

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way " Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka

> > > Varge " ,

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > mention, does

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean varga of both Venus and mars,

> > but

> > > of

> > > > > varga

> > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > Venus OR

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > due to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the grammar only. varga of two

> > planets

> > > can

> > > > > not

> > > > > > > fall

> > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bhava/amsha/rasi whether in rasi

or

> > > > > Navamsha or

> > > > > > > any

> > > > > > > > > > > other

> > > > > > > > > > > > > chart.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Grammatically,what you are

saying

> > is

> > > also

> > > > > > > true.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But Jyotish defintions play a

> > > preceding

> > > > > role

> > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > choosing

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammatical meaning.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example one meaning of

> > > labhe ,Swamshe

> > > > > etc

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > 11th

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But if we go by that we will

> > > definitely

> > > > > > > translate

> > > > > > > > > > > > > swamshe in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > meshadi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashige as ''in

Swamsha'',thereby

> > > > > translating

> > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > full

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart.This as you too agree,then

> > > cannot

> > > > > pass

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > test,of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > subsequent shlokas.I understand

> > gladly

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > too

> > > > > > > > > > > > > agree that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha and karakamsha are the

> > same.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So the context decides

> > plural/singular

> > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > necessarily

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the ''E''

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as you have rightly mentioned.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But in essence what i want to

say

> > > is ''E''

> > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > always

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean ''in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the'' as you have

> > > interpreted.Labheshe is

> > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > example.Karake

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus it can very well mean

Varga of

> > > > > Shukra and

> > > > > > > > > Mars-

> > > > > > > > > > > > > which can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > six vargas or one varga.(Not

> > lordship)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra -(There) In the second

from

> > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga or Vargas of Venus and

Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now why should we need two

> > > qualifiesrs for

> > > > > > > > > destination

> > > > > > > > > > > (1)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > In

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from karakamsha 2)in the vargas

> > of?)-

> > > if

> > > > > we had

> > > > > > > > > another

> > > > > > > > > > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your interpretation is

right.That

> > > planet

> > > > > will

> > > > > > > > > answer

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > question -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who is in the vargas of ?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly - Swamshad dhane

Shukrar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Swamshad dhane is already

pointing

> > to

> > > > > > > destination-

> > > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > need

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > another ''in the'' vargas of.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say in

the

> > 2nd

> > > > > from

> > > > > > > > > > > karakamsha if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mars and venus are present,it

fits

> > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > grammatically.Moreover

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i had

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentioned rashi lordship without

> > > planetary

> > > > > > > link

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (placement/amsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is too general.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In

> > <%

40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > > 40>,

> > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I may be wrong but the " E " by

> > itself

> > > > > does

> > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > point

> > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > word Shadvarga indicating 6

> > Vargas

> > > that

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > group

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (though it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more than one unit) and

> > so " Varge " ,

> > > the

> > > > > > > > > singular is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " E " means " in " . I would be

happy

> > if

> > > an

> > > > > > > example

> > > > > > > > > > > > > of " Varge "

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plural

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can be given.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not at all think that

> > Vargaka

> > > or

> > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > singular and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargake

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge is plural, at all. Both

the

> > > > > manner of

> > > > > > > > > using

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > indicates singular. it is no

use

> > > > > projecting

> > > > > > > > > what is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > clearly

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saptami

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vibhakti and singular as

being a

> > > plural

> > > > > > > word. If

> > > > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dvivachana it may

> > become " VargyoH "

> > > > > > > or " VargeSu "

> > > > > > > > > (for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bahuvachan)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge. Perhaps some Sanskrit

> > > scholar on

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > list

> > > > > > > > > > > would

> > > > > > > > > > > > > like

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > comment

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on this.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, much as I would like it to

> > > resolve,

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > issue

> > > > > > > > > > > > > remains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unresolved.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will give you a relevant

> > > example to

> > > > > > > explain

> > > > > > > > > how

> > > > > > > > > > > > > VarGE

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > context of plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna Shad-VargaKE - Is

> > pointing

> > > to

> > > > > all

> > > > > > > > > vargas -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plural.You

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > may

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > note

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that the grammatical ending

is

> > > > > with ''E''

> > > > > > > > > showing

> > > > > > > > > > > > > plurals

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expressed with such an

ending.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now from Vrishamsha''Ka''

and

> > > Tulamsha

> > > > > > > > > example we

> > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > conclude

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VargaKA and VarGA can be

used

> > for

> > > the

> > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > purpose in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ekavachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > singular form and VargaKE

and

> > > VarGE

> > > > > can be

> > > > > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bahuvachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plural form.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope this may help us in

> > > resolving

> > > > > our

> > > > > > > > > issue.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------

---

> > ---

> > > ----

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > > > > > > > -----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this

incoming

> > > > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus

> > Database:

> > > > > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this

> > message

> > > have

> > > > > been

> > > > > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------

---

> > ---

> > > ----

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > > > > > > > -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

> > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus

Database:

> > > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message

> > have

> > > been

> > > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---

---

> > ---

> > > ----

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

> > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message

have

> > been

> > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------

---

> > ---

> > > ----

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > -------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have

been

> > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > -----------

---

> > ---

> > > ----

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > ---------------

---

> > ---

> > > ----

> > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

269.10.2/890 -

> > > Release

> > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

removed]

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > -------------------

---

> > ---

> > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/890 -

> > Release

> > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeep,

 

The partial drishtis are graded in different strengths in the shloka

that you have quoted. I fail to see how the interpretation of this

shloka puts an end to aspects in Vargas ,and how does it prove that

rashi drishti is not to be considered as claimed by you.

 

Why should the shubha grahas have only graded drishti and not Rashi

drishti? There is nothing to support that premise in the shlokas from

Brihat Jataka talking about aspects in Trimshamshas.

 

Chandrashekhar.

vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>

> I thought you were aware of where that shloka is from.

> It is present in Rajayogadhyaya and came into picture during my

> debate with shri PVR Rao.

> This shloka was debated as ,interpretation of this shloka will bring

> to end all doubts regarding vargamshas.

> It is relevant to our discussion as you have mentioned shubha grahas

> aspecting Lagnamsha,and lagnamsha i one among the shadvargas of Lagna.

>

> Now you may kindly say,how this has to be interpreted ,as rashi

> drishti is ruled out in this case.

>

> I have no problems with Rashi drishti.But as you see in this case

> grades are being mentioned.

>

> Regsrding the shlokas(navamsha/trimshamsha),i did not have time

> yesterday in the night.Thus i have posted you the shlokas,withfull

> explanation and refernces.Kindly see them.

>

> Respect

> Pradeep

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > Do you mean to say that Parashara says that in connection with

> > Meshaamshe etc.? I doubt that shloka exists in the karakamsha

> adhyaaya,

> > but of course, I could be wrong.

> >

> > I asked you whether you accept the rashi drishtis that are

> mentioned by

> > Parashara and Jaimini or not? If Dashaaadhyaayi interprets the

> shlokas

> > on navamsha and Trimshamshas from Brihat Jataka, why not give what

> it says?

> >

> > You have given your interpretation of how amshakas should be

> > interpreted, but failed to address the queries. May I know why?

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> >

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > Purna drishte Purna Yogam Ardha Drishte ardhameva cha

> > > Pada drishte Padayogamiti gyeyam kramat phalam.

> > >

> > > Is mentioned and hence the aspects are not about Rashi drishti.

> > >

> > > Now as i have mentioned in the past,though the name is

> > > dashadhyayi,the author covers shlokas,from most of the chapters as

> > > and when he finds some interrelationship or link.This i consider

> as a

> > > real blessing.Now how amshakas are interpreted,has been

> > > demonstrated ,for numerous contexts,and thus forming a guideline

> for

> > > other shloka interpretations.

> > >

> > > I will see the shlokas,and will write back.

> > >

> > > Respect

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > Transits are to be seen no doubt from the rasis synonymous to

> the

> > > > navamsha rasis, but when it is sphuta it is of the navamshesha

> and

> > > not

> > > > the rasis. There is a difference between the two.

> > > >

> > > > I have already said I do not consider aspects in D-charts,

> unless

> > > > specifically mentioned in some yogas, and also that barring

> > > navamsha

> > > > charts, in other varga charts I look at rashi aspects. That does

> > > not

> > > > mean I should close my eyes to what is written in other

> respected

> > > texts.

> > > > That only means I look at charts from a different angle.

> > > >

> > > > There is nothing in the lagna shadvargake shloka to indicate

> graded

> > > > aspects and so it does not rule out rashi drishti at all. Ans

> since

> > > you

> > > > have quoted both Parashara and Jaimini you should know that

> rashi

> > > > drishtis are valid in Parashara too and exclusively so in

> Jaimini.

> > > >

> > > > Your translation and mine of the shlokas differ and that is why

> > > there is

> > > > no agreement. If you expect Dashaadhyaayi to give divisional

> charts

> > > and

> > > > their interpretations, that is not possible as Varaha Mihira on

> > > whose

> > > > work it is only a commentary does not speak of it and it is

> > > commentary

> > > > on only 10 of the 18 adhayaayas of Brihat jataka. If you read

> > > Brihat

> > > > jataka carefully, you will see reference o aspects in

> Trimshamsha

> > > there.

> > > > Since you have many times claimed superiority of Dashaadhyaayi

> over

> > > many

> > > > of the more ancient and respected classics, I find it strange

> as to

> > > why

> > > > you do not want to accept what is said in the original text on

> > > which

> > > > Dashaadhyaayi is only a commentary and that too on 10 adhyaayas

> as

> > > the

> > > > name suggests (that does not, of course, make it any less

> > > respectable).

> > > > There are many references to planets being placed in a navamsha,

> > > which

> > > > is not identical with the rasi whose name the navamsha enjoys,

> and

> > > the

> > > > results from them in the 21st adhyaaya. How do you map back

> such a

> > > > navamsha to the rasi and what should be the logic? You also see

> > > > reference to Guru occupying own Trimshamsha, irrespective of

> rasi

> > > in the

> > > > same adhayaaya. There are too many references like this to

> question

> > > the

> > > > theory that the amshas need always be mapped back to identical

> rasi

> > > in

> > > > rasi chart.

> > > >

> > > > Could you tell why this reluctance to accept Varaha Mihira?

> > > >

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > >

> > > > > Meshamshe, Vrishamshe Transit results can be seen from Mesha

> and

> > > > > Vrishabha rashis.Thus you are aware of what i am

> saying.Moreover

> > > we

> > > > > have seen paparkshe.we have seen meshadi rashige swamshe.we

> have

> > > seen

> > > > > that bhrigwonkaraka varge ,as per your understanding cannot

> > > satisfy

> > > > > both mars and venus.The very next shloka is talking about

> mars and

> > > > > venus yuti or aspecting.

> > > > >

> > > > > Now we can forget all these as you are not williing to accept

> > > > > rashi,riksha etc as valid reasoning.

> > > > >

> > > > > We have seen Lagna shadvargake shloka with aspectual

> > > grades,proving

> > > > > that they ae not rashi drishtis.Couple of days back and many

> > > times in

> > > > > the past,i have heard from you that you don't support aspects

> in

> > > > > Vargas.

> > > > >

> > > > > If you still have the sam views,then to understand shadvargake

> > > > > shloka,we have to see planets aspecting lagna in ''six

> charts''.As

> > > > > lagna can fall in any rashi,you have to accept aspects fully

> in

> > > all

> > > > > Varga charts.

> > > > >

> > > > > This is relevant to our discussion as lagnamsha is also part

> of

> > > > > shadvargas of lagna.

> > > > >

> > > > > As you are aware ,the BPHS translator too has expressed his

> > > concern.

> > > > >

> > > > > Regds

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > How could I think shadvarga of lagna is shadvarga of rashi?

> > > Lagna

> > > > > is the

> > > > > > point on the eastern horizon at the time of birth of a

> jataka.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > There is no dispute about what is lagnamsha and what is

> > > karakamsha

> > > > > at

> > > > > > all. At the same time when reference is to a graha falling

> in

> > > > > Lagnamsha

> > > > > > it refers to the navamsha rasi (or sector ruled by one of

> the

> > > rasis

> > > > > of a

> > > > > > planet, barring Sun and Chandra if you like it that way) in

> > > which

> > > > > the

> > > > > > lagnamsha falls. Now that being so where is the shubha graha

> > > > > supposed to

> > > > > > fall in the shloka I quoted? Same with the Shubh graha in

> > > > > Karakamsha and

> > > > > > needing drishti of shubha graha on it. It is easy to say

> that

> > > > > these

> > > > > > need to be seen in rasi, but for lack of the reference to

> rasi,

> > > > > there,

> > > > > > there is no reason to assume that it does not refer to

> navamsha

> > > > > rasi.

> > > > > > The reference to grahas in " Meshaamshe " , " Vrishabhaamshe "

> etc

> > > are

> > > > > quite

> > > > > > clear, in BPHS.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Of course Yes,you are correct.Varga is found for this

> bindu

> > > and in

> > > > > > > the case of planets their degree decides.The rest you have

> > > stated

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > also as per definition.My point was made under the

> impression

> > > that

> > > > > > > you have a view that,shadvarga of Lagna is shadvarga of a

> > > > > rashi.If so

> > > > > > > it is not.Shad varga is found for Lagna bindu.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The full Rashi/Kshethra in which Lagna bindu falls

> becomes its

> > > > > first

> > > > > > > Varga.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The Translation is entiterely correct and no one can

> > > > > contradict.This

> > > > > > > is similar to one planet aspecting shadvargas of lagna.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Lagnamsha is already covered in the shadvargas of

> > > > > lagna.Karakamsha is

> > > > > > > similar too.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Now let us see it on a chart.Karkamasha is in

> Dhanu.Jupiter is

> > > > > placed

> > > > > > > in Mithuna Rashi.Shubha graha is aspecting Karakamsha

> Lagna

> > > > > > > (Rashi).Similarly Lagnamsha.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > You are already aware of the rules for aspects.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I see your point of view. anyway even within shadvargas

> we

> > > look

> > > > > for

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > degree of a planet falling within a certain span of

> degrees

> > > and

> > > > > not

> > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > particular bindu.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I agree that rashi is a Varga and my question is if one

> can

> > > > > look at

> > > > > > > > aspects in one Varga why not in other Vargas? I am sure

> you

> > > know

> > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > personally I use navamsha to find only the strength of

> > > grahas,

> > > > > but

> > > > > > > there

> > > > > > > > is no reason to rule out aspects in Navamshas or other

> > > charts

> > > > > > > totally.

> > > > > > > > One of the raj yogas mentioned by Parashara talks of

> aspect

> > > of

> > > > > > > shubha

> > > > > > > > grahas on the karakamsha and Lagnamsha which should

> also be

> > > > > > > tenanted by

> > > > > > > > Shubha grahas, leaving no doubt as to where the aspects

> are

> > > to

> > > > > be

> > > > > > > seen.

> > > > > > > > And for the record the translation to that effect is by

> an

> > > > > eminent

> > > > > > > > astrologer who was Professor of astrology in Banaras

> Hindu

> > > > > > > University.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Lagna as a bindu was mentioned for driving home the

> > > shadvarga

> > > > > > > > > calculations,if any members were having doubts.For

> > > shadvarga

> > > > > > > > > calculation of planets too we need the bindu or

> degree of

> > > a

> > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > > within a rashi, as you are aware.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > We have to look at Rashis.This is so because Rashi

> (one 30

> > > > > degree

> > > > > > > > > sector ) is the first varga.As this Varga is

> synonymous

> > > with

> > > > > Bhava

> > > > > > > > > houses are analysed w.r to Rashis.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > If lagna is a bindu a you propose, and nothing more,

> > > then

> > > > > how

> > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > indicate an entire rasi? Now if this is correct, and

> > > > > technically

> > > > > > > > > it is,

> > > > > > > > > > then by your reckoning there is no need to look at

> rasis

> > > > > too. Is

> > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > what you mean to say?

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > If shadvargas are not related to the portion

> falling in

> > > the

> > > > > > > lagna

> > > > > > > > > rasis,

> > > > > > > > > > which holds the degree of lagna Madhya, then it

> appears

> > > we

> > > > > must

> > > > > > > ask

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > sages to redefine Vargas. I doubt they need our

> advise.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > There was a purpose.I just wanted to explain it

> to the

> > > > > > > members if

> > > > > > > > > > > some of them are not sure on what shadvarga of

> lagna

> > > is

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > how it

> > > > > > > > > > > is calculated.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > As you have said Vargas are divisions of a

> rashi.But

> > > > > > > shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > > Lagna is not the Vargas falling in Lagna.Here

> lagna is

> > > > > not a

> > > > > > > > > > > rashi,but a bindu.Vargas are found from a

> degree.The

> > > > > degree

> > > > > > > of a

> > > > > > > > > > > planet or degree of lagna.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > As you may know we do notneed six charts to

> dtermine

> > > > > > > shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > > lagna.All we need is the degree of lagna and the

> rashi

> > > > > rising.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Let us take an example.Lagna is at 11 degrees in

> > > dhanu.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Let us find the shadvargas of Lagna with th help

> of

> > > rising

> > > > > > > rashi

> > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > degree.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > 1st Varga - The Rashi in which Lagna bindu is

> > > falling -

> > > > > Dhanu

> > > > > > > > > > > 2nd Varga - The Hora in which Lagna bindu is

> falling -

> > > As

> > > > > 11

> > > > > > > > > degrees

> > > > > > > > > > > falls in the 1st half of dhanu - Surya Hora

> > > > > > > > > > > 3rd Varga - The drekkana in which Lagna bindu is

> > > falling -

> > > > > As

> > > > > > > 11

> > > > > > > > > > > degrees falls in the 2nd 1/3rd of dhanu -

> Drekkana is

> > > > > Mesha.

> > > > > > > > > > > 4th Varga - As 11 degrees falls in the 3rd

> > > > > saptamsha ,Lagna

> > > > > > > > > saptamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > is Kumbha.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Similraly - Lagna navamsha is Karka,Lagna

> Trimshamsha

> > > is

> > > > > > > dhanu.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Thus the purpose of whole exercise was to say that

> > > when

> > > > > we say

> > > > > > > > > > > shadvargas of Lagna or Mars,it does not mean the

> > > rashis

> > > > > owned

> > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > Lagna or Mars.But the Rashis on towhich they are

> > > > > placed,having

> > > > > > > > > > > hora,drekkana etc etc.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Vargas of Mars in the 2nd Rashi from karakamsha

> too

> > > is no

> > > > > > > > > differet.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > There are many meanings,that is why Rashi is

> called as

> > > > > > > > > > > Kshethra /Riksha /havana etc.But i don't think

> sage

> > > will

> > > > > use

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > saword to represent something belonging to same

> class.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > For example sage will not use ''sva'' to mean 2nd

> as

> > > well

> > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > 3rd.Then

> > > > > > > > > > > we cannot interpret.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Similarly Rashi and navamsha will not be

> represented

> > > > > using the

> > > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > word.Rashi/Kshethra/Riksha/Bhvana/Lagna etc are

> > > synonyms

> > > > > an

> > > > > > > ifthey

> > > > > > > > > > > are used for navamsha then what is the whole

> purpose

> > > > > behind

> > > > > > > > > defintion.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand sva was used for iems from

> different

> > > > > > > classes.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > This wasin mind while making such a statement.I

> will

> > > try

> > > > > my

> > > > > > > best

> > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > polish my style of writing.I accept my

> limitations in

> > > > > writing.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I have not understood your question or the

> intent

> > > behind

> > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas are divisions, within a rasi, ruled by

> > > different

> > > > > > > grahas.

> > > > > > > > > So

> > > > > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > > one wants t look at Vargas falling in lagna the

> shad

> > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > will

> > > > > > > > > > > mean

> > > > > > > > > > > > the rasi equivalent occurring at lagna position

> in

> > > the 6

> > > > > > > > > divisional

> > > > > > > > > > > > charts of Rashi, Hora, Dreshkana, Navamsha,

> > > > > Dwaadashamsha

> > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamsha. Or at least this is what I have

> learnt.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Sages did not use words in vain or context. I

> > > agree. But

> > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > mean they used the words to mean only one thing

> > > always.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I never said that the meaning can be changed to

> > > suit our

> > > > > > > > > > > convenience and

> > > > > > > > > > > > I would request you not to attribute such

> > > sentiments to

> > > > > me.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > However I do say that word are used in different

> > > > > contexts to

> > > > > > > > > mean

> > > > > > > > > > > > different things, especially in Sanskrit texts

> of

> > > > > Jyotish. I

> > > > > > > > > have,

> > > > > > > > > > > just

> > > > > > > > > > > > a few minutes back use of " Sva " with different

> > > meaning

> > > > > at

> > > > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > > > places by Varaha Mihira to you. I hope you do

> not

> > > also

> > > > > > > attribute

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > words that you attributed to me to the venerated

> > > Varaha

> > > > > > > Mihira.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar,.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pls tell me what you mean by shadvargas of

> > > lagna.How

> > > > > do

> > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > find

> > > > > > > > > > > > > them.Do you go by ownership or placement

> > > > > > > > > > > (Rashi/navamsha/dwadshamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > etc).

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > There are shlokas in Varahamihiras text which

> > > > > > > says ,Okarkshe

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Purushamshakae.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Which means in Ojarashi and Oja amsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > As per me sages will not use any words out of

> > > > > context.If

> > > > > > > he

> > > > > > > > > wants

> > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > say amsha he will mention it.He will not use

> > > Rashi to

> > > > > > > mean as

> > > > > > > > > > > amsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ojarkshe is Oja Rashi.Similarly Paparkshe is

> Papa

> > > > > Rashi.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you want to say as per our conveninece we

> can

> > > > > change

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > > > > > > > of riksha/rashi/bhavana/bhavas as navamsha

> then i

> > > > > cannot

> > > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > > > > anything.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I can only respect your views.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will tell you why that happens. You begin

> with

> > > > > quoting

> > > > > > > > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > then give a sutra from Jaimini as being

> said by

> > > > > > > Parashara.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Interpretation of sutras is not the easiest

> of

> > > the

> > > > > > > things,

> > > > > > > > > more

> > > > > > > > > > > so

> > > > > > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jaimini's Upadesha sutras. That the sutras

> use

> > > > > > > KaTaPaYaadi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > encryption

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > makes them even more difficult to

> interpret. I

> > > am

> > > > > sure

> > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > noticed

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this when Sreenadh interpreted the

> KaTaPaYaadi

> > > > > Varga in

> > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > wrong

> > > > > > > > > > > > > fashion.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then there is your insistence to let

> Sanskrit

> > > > > grammar

> > > > > > > give

> > > > > > > > > a go

> > > > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that can make interpretation of a shloka or

> > > sutra

> > > > > fit

> > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > > proposition.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any of the Shodasha Vargas of a rasi can be

> > > > > referred to

> > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > Varga,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > but as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > far as I know in astrology, when one talks

> of

> > > Varga,

> > > > > > > without

> > > > > > > > > > > > > qualifying

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it, or Amshas that generally refers to

> navamsha

> > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > Dwadashaamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another reason that we can not agree, or

> seem to

> > > > > agree,

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > you are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > reluctant to call a navamsha by the

> nomenclature

> > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > rasi.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > This

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > makes it difficult to convey what I mean to

> say

> > > in

> > > > > > > English

> > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the language of the net and which both of us

> > > know.

> > > > > Now

> > > > > > > > > since you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > do not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > want to use the word Mesha navamsha as

> Mesha is

> > > a

> > > > > rashi

> > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > logic it can not be a navamsha, it becomes

> > > > > difficult to

> > > > > > > > > convey

> > > > > > > > > > > > > what I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > understand by the texts.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will like to draw your attention to the

> > > literal

> > > > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi. It means a heap and nothing more. In

> > > astrology

> > > > > > > since

> > > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > encompasses many stars that make up a

> nakshatra

> > > the

> > > > > > > 1/12th

> > > > > > > > > > > > > division of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the zodiac is called a Rasi. Or at least

> this

> > > is my

> > > > > > > > > > > understanding

> > > > > > > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason of using the word rasi for the 1/12th

> > > > > division

> > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > zodiac.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not agree that by Chandra in Guru

> Varga it

> > > is

> > > > > meant

> > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandra is being seen. To me we are talking

> > > about is

> > > > > > > whether

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandra is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > falling in the Varga of Guru in which ever

> rasi

> > > he

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > occupying.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > So in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Navamsha we see whether Chandra is occupying

> > > Pisces

> > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > Sagittarius

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > navamsha. I also do not agree that there are

> > > Vargas

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > Chandra

> > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > of any

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > planet for that matter. The 16 Vargas that

> > > Parashara

> > > > > > > talks

> > > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that of a Rasi, beginning from the Rashi

> itself.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the Vargas are not owned by different

> > > planets,

> > > > > pray

> > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the sage

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > tell us to see occupation of a friend, own

> etc.

> > > > > Varga to

> > > > > > > > > assess

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > strength of a planet in the Varga concerned?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have interacted with many astrologers of

> > > > > yesteryears

> > > > > > > (with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > respect to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > my age group) and have never found them

> > > claiming the

> > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > only lagna and planets.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you insist that sage Parashara gave the

> SU.

> > > 52.-

> > > > > > > " Tatra

> > > > > > > > > > > > > bhrigwongaraka

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > varge paradarikaha " , perhaps you are

> referring

> > > to

> > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > edition

> > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > BPHS

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that I do not have. However I do have that

> in

> > > the

> > > > > > > umpteen

> > > > > > > > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > texts on Jaimini that I do have in my

> library.

> > > And

> > > > > by

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > way,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > scholars have interpreted that to mean 9th

> from

> > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the 2nd.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not agree that a graha can

> simultaneously

> > > > > occupy

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars, simultaneously, as is being

> > > > > suggested

> > > > > > > > > whether in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in any of the Vargas. It could only occupy

> one

> > > or

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > other.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have seen you arguing in favor of looking

> at

> > > the

> > > > > > > > > Shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > grahas Venus and Mars. I would like you to

> look

> > > at

> > > > > all

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > six

> > > > > > > > > > > > > charts

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > whose Vargas together are referred as

> > > Shadvargas and

> > > > > > > try to

> > > > > > > > > find

> > > > > > > > > > > > > out

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > whether they do indeed contain the 6 Vargas

> of

> > > Venus

> > > > > > > and 6

> > > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars. I am sure that you will find them to

> > > contain

> > > > > only

> > > > > > > 5

> > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > each of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the grahas. Once you confirm this by

> looking at

> > > the

> > > > > 6

> > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > > self,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > tell me how one can look at Shadvargas of

> Venus

> > > or

> > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested to be the interpretation of the

> sutra

> > > that

> > > > > > > you are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > referring to.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > You may also be interested to know that

> > > Parashara

> > > > > talks

> > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > AK

> > > > > > > > > > > > > falling in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Varga of Chandra, Mars or Venus also

> having

> > > the

> > > > > > > roving

> > > > > > > > > eye

> > > > > > > > > > > on

> > > > > > > > > > > > > others

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wives. So the combination of Venus and Mars

> > > being

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > giving

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the roving eye for other's wives, that you

> are

> > > > > > > advancing as

> > > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > standalone

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > principle, may not, necessarily, be the way

> the

> > > sage

> > > > > > > looked

> > > > > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > > > > > > their

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > interpretation.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Those were written by me.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am very dissappointed to see

> that ,inspite

> > > of

> > > > > > > repeating

> > > > > > > > > > > numerus

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > times,you are unable to get what i am

> saying.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not talking about rashis lorded by

> > > shukra or

> > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > here.I

> > > > > > > > > > > am

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > talking about the shadvargas vargas of

> mars

> > > and

> > > > > > > shukra.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pls tell me what is the meaning of

> shadvargas

> > > or

> > > > > > > simply

> > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lagna.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the rashi in which lagna is

> placed.The

> > > > > > > navamshaka of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna,Trimshamshaka of Lagna etc.Can we

> see

> > > any

> > > > > > > lordship

> > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > say.Lagna does not own any rashi.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly when we say vargas of Venus -It

> > > means

> > > > > Rashi

> > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> Venus,Hora,navamshaka,drekkana,trimshamshaka

> > > etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shadvarga is never the rashi owned by a

> > > > > planet.Then

> > > > > > > Lagna

> > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > never

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have shadvarga.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say,Chandra in

> Guru

> > > > > Varga - We

> > > > > > > > > are not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > seeing

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the shadvarga of Guru,but that of

> chandra.Is

> > > > > chandra

> > > > > > > > > placed in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Guru

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rashi?Is Chandra navamshaka in Guru

> Rashi.Is

> > > > > Chandra

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamshaka in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guru Rashi etc is what we check.If so

> chandras

> > > > > vargas

> > > > > > > > > fall in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > guru

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashis or we say chandra is in guruvargas.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the same reason schoplars of

> yesteryears

> > > > > always

> > > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for our natal Lagna and Planets.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand you are taking them as

> > > owned by

> > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > planet.Every

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > shadvarga that derive is like that.You may

> > > check

> > > > > this

> > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > shri

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Narasimha,how he is deriving it for his

> > > software.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the same reason Bhrigu and Angara can

> have

> > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > together

> > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rashi which is 2nd from Karakamsha.Sage

> > > clearly

> > > > > talks

> > > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vargas from both.Moreover the next shloka

> is

> > > > > talking

> > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus together or aspecting the 2nd from

> > > > > karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we go by your

> > > explanation,we

> > > > > > > have to

> > > > > > > > > opt

> > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just one among shukra or Mars which is not

> > > > > > > proper.Their

> > > > > > > > > Joint

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > influence creates sexual drive.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I request you to kindly read this with

> care.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rspect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The below remarks are not from my mail

> at

> > > all.

> > > > > I do

> > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > know

> > > > > > > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think I would write that. I am sure you

> know

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > my

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > style

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of writing at all.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " >From my experience -Mars + Venus

> creates

> > > > > certin

> > > > > > > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why are

> you

> > > > > going

> > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > owned by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just one of them and that too without a

> > > > > planetary

> > > > > > > link

> > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > really

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > worrying me.Shri Rath has translated

> so,i

> > > > > agree.But

> > > > > > > i

> > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will

> definitely

> > > > > correct

> > > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > benfit

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of jyotish community. "

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As to why I said they could not be

> having

> > > their

> > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > together in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi or Bhava does not need any deeper

> > > > > explanation.

> > > > > > > If

> > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > looking

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at the 2nd from Karakamsha in the rasi

> > > chart,

> > > > > as you

> > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > right, you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > could not have both Mesha and Vrishabha

> or

> > > Tula

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > Vrishchika

> > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd from the Karakamsha, is that not so?

> > > > > Similarly

> > > > > > > if in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the 2nd from Karakamsha is to be seen,

> the

> > > 2nd

> > > > > > > could be

> > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > navamshas.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I though you meant so.Because in

> > > subsequent

> > > > > lines

> > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > see

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and Karakamsha being used for the same

> > > > > > > purpose.But if

> > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there are other places where swamsha

> is

> > > used

> > > > > for

> > > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagnamsha ,then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i can trust you if you can point me to

> > > that.

> > > > > This

> > > > > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > be a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problem and in no way it will affect

> us.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars can ofcourse have their

> > > Vargas

> > > > > in a

> > > > > > > > > single

> > > > > > > > > > > > > rashi or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bhava.Venus can have navamsha

> there,Mars

> > > can

> > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there,Venus can have Trimshamsha

> > > there,Mars

> > > > > can

> > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there,they both can have drekkana

> there

> > > etc

> > > > > etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus sage is talking about Bhrigu and

> > > Angara

> > > > > both

> > > > > > > (as

> > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > identified gramattically) having varga

> > > there

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > it is

> > > > > > > > > > > very

> > > > > > > > > > > > > much

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you note the next line -Sage is

> talking

> > > > > about

> > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > Venus

> > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > joining or aspecting the 2nd from

> > > Karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From my experience -Mars + Venus

> creates

> > > > > certin

> > > > > > > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why

> are

> > > you

> > > > > going

> > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > owned by just one of them and that too

> > > > > without a

> > > > > > > > > planetary

> > > > > > > > > > > > > link is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really worrying me.Shri Rath has

> > > translated

> > > > > so,i

> > > > > > > > > > > agree.But i

> > > > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will

> > > definitely

> > > > > > > correct

> > > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > > > > for the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > benfit of jyotish community.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am surprised as to why you say

> so.That

> > > they

> > > > > > > cannot

> > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > together.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pardeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> 40>,

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have never said that I do not

> think

> > > that

> > > > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different where the context demands

> so.

> > > At

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > time I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammar can be put to rest to in the

> > > name of

> > > > > > > > > context,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > without

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sound

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course if you want contextual

> > > translation

> > > > > > > only,

> > > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > one can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > certainly say that the " Meshadi

> raashige

> > > > > > > swaamshe "

> > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > always be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > translated as " Falling in Mesha

> > > navamsha in

> > > > > > > Mesha

> > > > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > etc. " .

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way " Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka

> > > Varge " ,

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > mention, does

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean varga of both Venus and mars,

> but

> > > of

> > > > > varga

> > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > Venus OR

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > due to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the grammar only. varga of two

> planets

> > > can

> > > > > not

> > > > > > > fall

> > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bhava/amsha/rasi whether in rasi or

> > > > > Navamsha or

> > > > > > > any

> > > > > > > > > > > other

> > > > > > > > > > > > > chart.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Grammatically,what you are saying

> is

> > > also

> > > > > > > true.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But Jyotish defintions play a

> > > preceding

> > > > > role

> > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > choosing

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammatical meaning.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example one meaning of

> > > labhe ,Swamshe

> > > > > etc

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > 11th

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But if we go by that we will

> > > definitely

> > > > > > > translate

> > > > > > > > > > > > > swamshe in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > meshadi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashige as ''in Swamsha'',thereby

> > > > > translating

> > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > full

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart.This as you too agree,then

> > > cannot

> > > > > pass

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > test,of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > subsequent shlokas.I understand

> gladly

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > too

> > > > > > > > > > > > > agree that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha and karakamsha are the

> same.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So the context decides

> plural/singular

> > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > necessarily

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the ''E''

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as you have rightly mentioned.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But in essence what i want to say

> > > is ''E''

> > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > always

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean ''in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the'' as you have

> > > interpreted.Labheshe is

> > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > example.Karake

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus it can very well mean Varga

> of

> > > > > Shukra and

> > > > > > > > > Mars-

> > > > > > > > > > > > > which can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > six vargas or one varga.(Not

> lordship)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra -(There) In the second from

> > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga or Vargas of Venus and Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now why should we need two

> > > qualifiesrs for

> > > > > > > > > destination

> > > > > > > > > > > (1)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > In

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from karakamsha 2)in the vargas

> of?)-

> > > if

> > > > > we had

> > > > > > > > > another

> > > > > > > > > > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your interpretation is right.That

> > > planet

> > > > > will

> > > > > > > > > answer

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > question -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who is in the vargas of ?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly - Swamshad dhane Shukrar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Swamshad dhane is already

> pointing to

> > > > > > > destination-

> > > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > need

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > another ''in the'' vargas of.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say in

> the 2nd

> > > > > from

> > > > > > > > > > > karakamsha if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mars and venus are present,it

> fits in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > grammatically.Moreover

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i had

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentioned rashi lordship without

> > > planetary

> > > > > > > link

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (placement/amsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is too general.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> 40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > > 40>,

> > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I may be wrong but the " E " by

> itself

> > > > > does

> > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > point

> > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > word Shadvarga indicating 6

> Vargas

> > > that

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > group

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (though it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more than one unit) and

> so " Varge " ,

> > > the

> > > > > > > > > singular is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " E " means " in " . I would be

> happy if

> > > an

> > > > > > > example

> > > > > > > > > > > > > of " Varge "

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plural

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can be given.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not at all think that

> Vargaka

> > > or

> > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > singular and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargake

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge is plural, at all. Both

> the

> > > > > manner of

> > > > > > > > > using

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > indicates singular. it is no use

> > > > > projecting

> > > > > > > > > what is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > clearly

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saptami

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vibhakti and singular as being a

> > > plural

> > > > > > > word. If

> > > > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dvivachana it may

> become " VargyoH "

> > > > > > > or " VargeSu "

> > > > > > > > > (for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bahuvachan)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge. Perhaps some Sanskrit

> > > scholar on

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > list

> > > > > > > > > > > would

> > > > > > > > > > > > > like

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > comment

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on this.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, much as I would like it to

> > > resolve,

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > issue

> > > > > > > > > > > > > remains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unresolved.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will give you a relevant

> > > example to

> > > > > > > explain

> > > > > > > > > how

> > > > > > > > > > > > > VarGE

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > context of plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna Shad-VargaKE - Is

> pointing

> > > to

> > > > > all

> > > > > > > > > vargas -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plural.You

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > may

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > note

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that the grammatical ending is

> > > > > with ''E''

> > > > > > > > > showing

> > > > > > > > > > > > > plurals

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expressed with such an ending.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now from Vrishamsha''Ka'' and

> > > Tulamsha

> > > > > > > > > example we

> > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > conclude

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VargaKA and VarGA can be used

> for

> > > the

> > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > purpose in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ekavachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > singular form and VargaKE and

> > > VarGE

> > > > > can be

> > > > > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bahuvachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plural form.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope this may help us in

> > > resolving

> > > > > our

> > > > > > > > > issue.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > > > > > > > -----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this

> incoming

> > > > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus

> Database:

> > > > > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this

> message

> > > have

> > > > > been

> > > > > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > > > > > > > -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

> > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message

> have

> > > been

> > > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

> message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have

> been

> > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > -------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > -----------------

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/890 -

> > > Release

> > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > ---------------------

> ----

> > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/890 -

> Release

> > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeep,

 

If you think " ca " does not mean AND, in Sanskrit then there may not be

any point in discussing this any further. And if translations of all

other learned scholars are to be rejected in favour of Dashaadhyaayi,

then there is no use discussing what Parashara said too as Dashaadhyaayi

is a commentary on Brihat jataka.

 

Personally, I do not think that only Dashaadhyaayi encompasses all the

vedic astrological knowledge though it is one amongst the respected texts.

 

Chandrashekhar.

 

vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>

> If you remember our first discussion,which is present in the

> archives,you were only mentioning about shukra and saturn in

> paraspara amsha and aspecting each other.You had added that these are

> aspects in Trimshamsha chakra.

>

> I had then quoted the second line which points to Lagna being that of

> Shukra and its navamsha in ghata rashi.

>

> For which your reply was we are looking into different texts.

>

> You have only quoted the 2nd line from Saravali.

>

> The full shloka in Saravali is as follows -

> Shukra Sithau yadi paraspara bhaga samsthau

> shaukre cha drishti pathagavudaye ghatamshe

>

> Thus the first line does not contain any aspect mentioned.How can we

> say that the first line is stand alone.Do you say if Shukra and

> Saturn are in each others amsha a lady will behave like this.

> The second line makes it complete.The lagna should be that of

> shukra,saturn and venus should aspect each other,and lagnamsha should

> fall in Ghatamsha.

>

> Thus Dashadhyayi kara is crystal clear on what Saravali is

> saying.Atleast for this shloka i feel there is no ambiguity needed.

>

> Respect

> Pradeep

>

> Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > If Dashaadhyaayi thinks Saravali is a standard text to rely upon (

> as

> > you have quoted a reference therein quoting Saravali to support

> some

> > interpretation) why say that other concepts in Saravali are wrong?

> > Saravali says " Shaukre ca drishtipathagaavudaye ghataamshe " etc.

> > indicating the necessity of exchange of amshas and mutual aspect

> between

> > Shukra and Shani as concurrent condition for the first yoga to

> fructify.

> > And then goes on to say that if for a lagna having rasi of Shukra

> and

> > navamsha of Shani similar results would ensue. GhataaMshe has been

> > interpreted as the amsha of Shani and not merely amsha of Kumbha by

> many

> > translators.

> >

> > I can not comment on the interpretation of Dashaadhyaayikar of the

> > shloka but the shloka from Brihat Jataka that I have also says

> > " driksamsthaavasitasito parasparaamshe shoke vaa yadi ghata

> > raashisambhavoMshaH. " followed by the next line that I did not find

> > necessary to quote as it does not talk about the yoga but only the

> > results, which you have already quoted and I felt may not be

> necessary

> > to post on line.

> >

> > That there are two distinct yogas is also not new to translators of

> > Brihat jataka. Since you accept that the first line does say about

> > occupation of each others amsha AND aspect on each other is indeed

> > covered in the first line, the reluctance to accept aspects in

> specific

> > cases is something that I am not able to understand.

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > I can clearly understand your position.Especially as you have

> > > said,the texts that we are referring to are different.Here comes

> the

> > > importance of Dashadhyayi.After my explanation you can also see

> that

> > > it is not only dashadhyayi ,but Saravali as well is having the

> same

> > > opinion on the shloka explained below.

> > >

> > > As i have mentioned yesterday,dashadhyayi is not covering just the

> > > first 10 chapters as the name suggests.For example let me take a

> > > chapter towards the end ,chapter 22-Sthree Jataka Adhyaya.

> > >

> > > Thalakkulathu Govinda Bhattathiri has given interpretations,for

> all

> > > the shlokas from 1 through 16,except shloka 13, while interpreting

> > > chapters 1 through 10. Shloka 13 as you can see is pretty straight

> > > forward.

> > >

> > > Now let us take the shloka which as per you is referring

> > > to ''Trimshamsha Chakra'' with aspects therein.Firstly the results

> > > for planets being placed in rashis belonging to Mesha onwards,and

> > > within that Trimshamshas belonging to Mars onwards is explained

> and

> > > ends by shloka 6.

> > >

> > > Now let us take

> > >

> > > ''Driksamstha VasithaSithau Parasparamshe

> > > Shaukre Va yadi Ghata Rashi Sambhavomsha''

> > > Next 2 lines explains the result.

> > >

> > > As per you,there is only a reference regarding Venus and Saturn

> > > aspecting each other and also in each others Amsha.This is covered

> > > in the first line.My worry is where has the second line gone in

> the

> > > text that you are having.Either it was not interpreted or it was

> > > inadvertently got missed out from printing.

> > >

> > > Now Dashadhyayi says -

> > >

> > > Driksamsthau ithyadi Yoga dvayam - Two Yogas.First one is

> > > corresponding to the first line as we have seen.

> > >

> > > Shaukre Rashau Yadi Kumbhamshe Udethi ..Thatha dvitheeyam - the

> > > second.Meaning ,The Ascendant should be either Tula or Vrishabha

> and

> > > it should have Kumbhamsha(Kumbha is Ghata - Ghata Rashi

> > > Sambhavomsha).

> > >

> > > Now the author says, as per some these two can be taken as one

> yoga

> > > as well(Saravali too says so).

> > >

> > > Parasparamshagatha Vasitha Sithou Paraspara Drishtau Shaukre

> > > Rashavudayathi Kumbhamshakashcha Bhavathi Yadee - then the

> > > result.And the author says -T hatha Cha Saravalyam.And quotes

> > > corresponding shloka from Saravali,where again the said line is

> > > present(sanskrit).Thus it says - For a Lady to have such a strong

> > > sexual desire - Purusha Veshadhari(One dressign up as a man -thus

> > > lesbian),her ascendant should belong to Venus and the amsha of her

> > > ascendant should fall in Kumbha Rashi,and in her chart Saturn and

> > > Venus should aspect each other and also have exchange of amshas.

> > >

> > > Thus you see,in either case there is a line which is missing in

> your

> > > book,which helps us to understand that it is not a varga chakra.I

> > > dont know how it happened.

> > >

> > > Thus if Dashadhyayi was not there,then i would have also not got

> any

> > > opportunity to understand this in such detail.This is the beauty

> of

> > > this text and as you know without any value ParashnaMarga will not

> > > praise it with such a high regard.The rest of the text is great

> and

> > > explains every concept with authority,quoting many sources.

> > >

> > > I consider you with great regard(Gurusthana) and holds respect

> > > towards your views and analysis.You may kindly understand that,i

> > > will not misquote and misrepresent,especially when the subject is

> > > Jyotish.If some others in this list is having mistrust,they should

> > > understand that i am not the only keralite living in this universe

> > > and they can seek help from others to see if i am cheating.I have

> no

> > > hatred towards their words.If it brings happiness to them let them

> > > continue with false allegations.

> > >

> > > I will prepare the paper and then would request your good self to

> > > review.I am so thankful that you have tested me with tough

> questions

> > > and logic,which has helped me to learn more.

> > >

> > > Respect

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > >

> > > > Purna drishte Purna Yogam Ardha Drishte ardhameva cha

> > > > Pada drishte Padayogamiti gyeyam kramat phalam.

> > > >

> > > > Is mentioned and hence the aspects are not about Rashi drishti.

> > > >

> > > > Now as i have mentioned in the past,though the name is

> > > > dashadhyayi,the author covers shlokas,from most of the chapters

> as

> > > > and when he finds some interrelationship or link.This i consider

> > > as a

> > > > real blessing.Now how amshakas are interpreted,has been

> > > > demonstrated ,for numerous contexts,and thus forming a guideline

> > > for

> > > > other shloka interpretations.

> > > >

> > > > I will see the shlokas,and will write back.

> > > >

> > > > Respect

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > Transits are to be seen no doubt from the rasis synonymous to

> > > the

> > > > > navamsha rasis, but when it is sphuta it is of the navamshesha

> > > and

> > > > not

> > > > > the rasis. There is a difference between the two.

> > > > >

> > > > > I have already said I do not consider aspects in D-charts,

> > > unless

> > > > > specifically mentioned in some yogas, and also that barring

> > > > navamsha

> > > > > charts, in other varga charts I look at rashi aspects. That

> does

> > > > not

> > > > > mean I should close my eyes to what is written in other

> > > respected

> > > > texts.

> > > > > That only means I look at charts from a different angle.

> > > > >

> > > > > There is nothing in the lagna shadvargake shloka to indicate

> > > graded

> > > > > aspects and so it does not rule out rashi drishti at all. Ans

> > > since

> > > > you

> > > > > have quoted both Parashara and Jaimini you should know that

> > > rashi

> > > > > drishtis are valid in Parashara too and exclusively so in

> > > Jaimini.

> > > > >

> > > > > Your translation and mine of the shlokas differ and that is

> why

> > > > there is

> > > > > no agreement. If you expect Dashaadhyaayi to give divisional

> > > charts

> > > > and

> > > > > their interpretations, that is not possible as Varaha Mihira

> on

> > > > whose

> > > > > work it is only a commentary does not speak of it and it is

> > > > commentary

> > > > > on only 10 of the 18 adhayaayas of Brihat jataka. If you read

> > > > Brihat

> > > > > jataka carefully, you will see reference o aspects in

> > > Trimshamsha

> > > > there.

> > > > > Since you have many times claimed superiority of Dashaadhyaayi

> > > over

> > > > many

> > > > > of the more ancient and respected classics, I find it strange

> as

> > > to

> > > > why

> > > > > you do not want to accept what is said in the original text on

> > > > which

> > > > > Dashaadhyaayi is only a commentary and that too on 10

> adhyaayas

> > > as

> > > > the

> > > > > name suggests (that does not, of course, make it any less

> > > > respectable).

> > > > > There are many references to planets being placed in a

> navamsha,

> > > > which

> > > > > is not identical with the rasi whose name the navamsha enjoys,

> > > and

> > > > the

> > > > > results from them in the 21st adhyaaya. How do you map back

> such

> > > a

> > > > > navamsha to the rasi and what should be the logic? You also

> see

> > > > > reference to Guru occupying own Trimshamsha, irrespective of

> > > rasi

> > > > in the

> > > > > same adhayaaya. There are too many references like this to

> > > question

> > > > the

> > > > > theory that the amshas need always be mapped back to identical

> > > rasi

> > > > in

> > > > > rasi chart.

> > > > >

> > > > > Could you tell why this reluctance to accept Varaha Mihira?

> > > > >

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Meshamshe, Vrishamshe Transit results can be seen from Mesha

> > > and

> > > > > > Vrishabha rashis.Thus you are aware of what i am

> > > saying.Moreover

> > > > we

> > > > > > have seen paparkshe.we have seen meshadi rashige swamshe.we

> > > have

> > > > seen

> > > > > > that bhrigwonkaraka varge ,as per your understanding cannot

> > > > satisfy

> > > > > > both mars and venus.The very next shloka is talking about

> mars

> > > and

> > > > > > venus yuti or aspecting.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Now we can forget all these as you are not williing to

> accept

> > > > > > rashi,riksha etc as valid reasoning.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > We have seen Lagna shadvargake shloka with aspectual

> > > > grades,proving

> > > > > > that they ae not rashi drishtis.Couple of days back and many

> > > > times in

> > > > > > the past,i have heard from you that you don't support

> aspects

> > > in

> > > > > > Vargas.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If you still have the sam views,then to understand

> shadvargake

> > > > > > shloka,we have to see planets aspecting lagna in ''six

> > > charts''.As

> > > > > > lagna can fall in any rashi,you have to accept aspects fully

> > > in

> > > > all

> > > > > > Varga charts.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > This is relevant to our discussion as lagnamsha is also

> part of

> > > > > > shadvargas of lagna.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As you are aware ,the BPHS translator too has expressed his

> > > > concern.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > How could I think shadvarga of lagna is shadvarga of

> rashi?

> > > > Lagna

> > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > point on the eastern horizon at the time of birth of a

> > > jataka.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > There is no dispute about what is lagnamsha and what is

> > > > karakamsha

> > > > > > at

> > > > > > > all. At the same time when reference is to a graha

> falling in

> > > > > > Lagnamsha

> > > > > > > it refers to the navamsha rasi (or sector ruled by one of

> > > the

> > > > rasis

> > > > > > of a

> > > > > > > planet, barring Sun and Chandra if you like it that way)

> in

> > > > which

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > lagnamsha falls. Now that being so where is the shubha

> graha

> > > > > > supposed to

> > > > > > > fall in the shloka I quoted? Same with the Shubh graha in

> > > > > > Karakamsha and

> > > > > > > needing drishti of shubha graha on it. It is easy to say

> that

> > > > > > these

> > > > > > > need to be seen in rasi, but for lack of the reference to

> > > rasi,

> > > > > > there,

> > > > > > > there is no reason to assume that it does not refer to

> > > navamsha

> > > > > > rasi.

> > > > > > > The reference to grahas in " Meshaamshe " , " Vrishabhaamshe "

> > > etc

> > > > are

> > > > > > quite

> > > > > > > clear, in BPHS.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Of course Yes,you are correct.Varga is found for this

> > > bindu

> > > > and in

> > > > > > > > the case of planets their degree decides.The rest you

> have

> > > > stated

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > also as per definition.My point was made under the

> > > impression

> > > > that

> > > > > > > > you have a view that,shadvarga of Lagna is shadvarga of

> a

> > > > > > rashi.If so

> > > > > > > > it is not.Shad varga is found for Lagna bindu.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > The full Rashi/Kshethra in which Lagna bindu falls

> becomes

> > > its

> > > > > > first

> > > > > > > > Varga.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > The Translation is entiterely correct and no one can

> > > > > > contradict.This

> > > > > > > > is similar to one planet aspecting shadvargas of lagna.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Lagnamsha is already covered in the shadvargas of

> > > > > > lagna.Karakamsha is

> > > > > > > > similar too.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Now let us see it on a chart.Karkamasha is in

> > > Dhanu.Jupiter is

> > > > > > placed

> > > > > > > > in Mithuna Rashi.Shubha graha is aspecting Karakamsha

> Lagna

> > > > > > > > (Rashi).Similarly Lagnamsha.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > You are already aware of the rules for aspects.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I see your point of view. anyway even within

> shadvargas

> > > we

> > > > look

> > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > degree of a planet falling within a certain span of

> > > degrees

> > > > and

> > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > particular bindu.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I agree that rashi is a Varga and my question is if

> one

> > > can

> > > > > > look at

> > > > > > > > > aspects in one Varga why not in other Vargas? I am

> sure

> > > you

> > > > know

> > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > personally I use navamsha to find only the strength of

> > > > grahas,

> > > > > > but

> > > > > > > > there

> > > > > > > > > is no reason to rule out aspects in Navamshas or other

> > > > charts

> > > > > > > > totally.

> > > > > > > > > One of the raj yogas mentioned by Parashara talks of

> > > aspect

> > > > of

> > > > > > > > shubha

> > > > > > > > > grahas on the karakamsha and Lagnamsha which should

> also

> > > be

> > > > > > > > tenanted by

> > > > > > > > > Shubha grahas, leaving no doubt as to where the

> aspects

> > > are

> > > > to

> > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > seen.

> > > > > > > > > And for the record the translation to that effect is

> by

> > > an

> > > > > > eminent

> > > > > > > > > astrologer who was Professor of astrology in Banaras

> > > Hindu

> > > > > > > > University.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Lagna as a bindu was mentioned for driving home the

> > > > shadvarga

> > > > > > > > > > calculations,if any members were having doubts.For

> > > > shadvarga

> > > > > > > > > > calculation of planets too we need the bindu or

> degree

> > > of

> > > > a

> > > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > > > within a rashi, as you are aware.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > We have to look at Rashis.This is so because Rashi

> > > (one 30

> > > > > > degree

> > > > > > > > > > sector ) is the first varga.As this Varga is

> > > synonymous

> > > > with

> > > > > > Bhava

> > > > > > > > > > houses are analysed w.r to Rashis.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > If lagna is a bindu a you propose, and nothing

> more,

> > > > then

> > > > > > how

> > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > > indicate an entire rasi? Now if this is correct,

> and

> > > > > > technically

> > > > > > > > > > it is,

> > > > > > > > > > > then by your reckoning there is no need to look at

> > > rasis

> > > > > > too. Is

> > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > what you mean to say?

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > If shadvargas are not related to the portion

> falling

> > > in

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > lagna

> > > > > > > > > > rasis,

> > > > > > > > > > > which holds the degree of lagna Madhya, then it

> > > appears

> > > > we

> > > > > > must

> > > > > > > > ask

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > sages to redefine Vargas. I doubt they need our

> > > advise.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > There was a purpose.I just wanted to explain it

> to

> > > the

> > > > > > > > members if

> > > > > > > > > > > > some of them are not sure on what shadvarga of

> > > lagna

> > > > is

> > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > how it

> > > > > > > > > > > > is calculated.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > As you have said Vargas are divisions of a

> > > rashi.But

> > > > > > > > shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna is not the Vargas falling in Lagna.Here

> > > lagna is

> > > > > > not a

> > > > > > > > > > > > rashi,but a bindu.Vargas are found from a

> > > degree.The

> > > > > > degree

> > > > > > > > of a

> > > > > > > > > > > > planet or degree of lagna.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > As you may know we do notneed six charts to

> > > dtermine

> > > > > > > > shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > > > lagna.All we need is the degree of lagna and the

> > > rashi

> > > > > > rising.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Let us take an example.Lagna is at 11 degrees in

> > > > dhanu.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Let us find the shadvargas of Lagna with th help

> > > of

> > > > rising

> > > > > > > > rashi

> > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > degree.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > 1st Varga - The Rashi in which Lagna bindu is

> > > > falling -

> > > > > > Dhanu

> > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd Varga - The Hora in which Lagna bindu is

> > > falling -

> > > > As

> > > > > > 11

> > > > > > > > > > degrees

> > > > > > > > > > > > falls in the 1st half of dhanu - Surya Hora

> > > > > > > > > > > > 3rd Varga - The drekkana in which Lagna bindu is

> > > > falling -

> > > > > > As

> > > > > > > > 11

> > > > > > > > > > > > degrees falls in the 2nd 1/3rd of dhanu -

> Drekkana

> > > is

> > > > > > Mesha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > 4th Varga - As 11 degrees falls in the 3rd

> > > > > > saptamsha ,Lagna

> > > > > > > > > > saptamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > is Kumbha.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Similraly - Lagna navamsha is Karka,Lagna

> > > Trimshamsha

> > > > is

> > > > > > > > dhanu.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Thus the purpose of whole exercise was to say

> that

> > > > when

> > > > > > we say

> > > > > > > > > > > > shadvargas of Lagna or Mars,it does not mean the

> > > > rashis

> > > > > > owned

> > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna or Mars.But the Rashis on towhich they are

> > > > > > placed,having

> > > > > > > > > > > > hora,drekkana etc etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas of Mars in the 2nd Rashi from karakamsha

> > > too

> > > > is no

> > > > > > > > > > differet.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > There are many meanings,that is why Rashi is

> > > called as

> > > > > > > > > > > > Kshethra /Riksha /havana etc.But i don't think

> > > sage

> > > > will

> > > > > > use

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > saword to represent something belonging to same

> > > class.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > For example sage will not use ''sva'' to mean

> 2nd

> > > as

> > > > well

> > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > 3rd.Then

> > > > > > > > > > > > we cannot interpret.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly Rashi and navamsha will not be

> > > represented

> > > > > > using the

> > > > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > > word.Rashi/Kshethra/Riksha/Bhvana/Lagna etc are

> > > > synonyms

> > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > ifthey

> > > > > > > > > > > > are used for navamsha then what is the whole

> > > purpose

> > > > > > behind

> > > > > > > > > > defintion.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand sva was used for iems from

> > > different

> > > > > > > > classes.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > This wasin mind while making such a statement.I

> > > will

> > > > try

> > > > > > my

> > > > > > > > best

> > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > polish my style of writing.I accept my

> limitations

> > > in

> > > > > > writing.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I have not understood your question or the

> > > intent

> > > > behind

> > > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas are divisions, within a rasi, ruled by

> > > > different

> > > > > > > > grahas.

> > > > > > > > > > So

> > > > > > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > one wants t look at Vargas falling in lagna

> the

> > > shad

> > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > will

> > > > > > > > > > > > mean

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the rasi equivalent occurring at lagna

> position

> > > in

> > > > the 6

> > > > > > > > > > divisional

> > > > > > > > > > > > > charts of Rashi, Hora, Dreshkana, Navamsha,

> > > > > > Dwaadashamsha

> > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamsha. Or at least this is what I have

> > > learnt.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sages did not use words in vain or context. I

> > > > agree. But

> > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > mean they used the words to mean only one

> thing

> > > > always.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I never said that the meaning can be changed

> to

> > > > suit our

> > > > > > > > > > > > convenience and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I would request you not to attribute such

> > > > sentiments to

> > > > > > me.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > However I do say that word are used in

> different

> > > > > > contexts to

> > > > > > > > > > mean

> > > > > > > > > > > > > different things, especially in Sanskrit

> texts of

> > > > > > Jyotish. I

> > > > > > > > > > have,

> > > > > > > > > > > > just

> > > > > > > > > > > > > a few minutes back use of " Sva " with different

> > > > meaning

> > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > > > > places by Varaha Mihira to you. I hope you do

> > > not

> > > > also

> > > > > > > > attribute

> > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > words that you attributed to me to the

> venerated

> > > > Varaha

> > > > > > > > Mihira.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar,.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pls tell me what you mean by shadvargas of

> > > > lagna.How

> > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > find

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > them.Do you go by ownership or placement

> > > > > > > > > > > > (Rashi/navamsha/dwadshamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc).

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are shlokas in Varahamihiras text

> which

> > > > > > > > says ,Okarkshe

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Purushamshakae.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which means in Ojarashi and Oja amsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > As per me sages will not use any words out

> of

> > > > > > context.If

> > > > > > > > he

> > > > > > > > > > wants

> > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > say amsha he will mention it.He will not use

> > > > Rashi to

> > > > > > > > mean as

> > > > > > > > > > > > amsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ojarkshe is Oja Rashi.Similarly Paparkshe is

> > > Papa

> > > > > > Rashi.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you want to say as per our conveninece we

> > > can

> > > > > > change

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of riksha/rashi/bhavana/bhavas as navamsha

> > > then i

> > > > > > cannot

> > > > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > anything.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can only respect your views.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will tell you why that happens. You

> begin

> > > with

> > > > > > quoting

> > > > > > > > > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then give a sutra from Jaimini as being

> said

> > > by

> > > > > > > > Parashara.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Interpretation of sutras is not the

> easiest

> > > of

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > things,

> > > > > > > > > > more

> > > > > > > > > > > > so

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jaimini's Upadesha sutras. That the sutras

> > > use

> > > > > > > > KaTaPaYaadi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > encryption

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > makes them even more difficult to

> interpret.

> > > I

> > > > am

> > > > > > sure

> > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > noticed

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this when Sreenadh interpreted the

> > > KaTaPaYaadi

> > > > > > Varga in

> > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > wrong

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > fashion.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then there is your insistence to let

> Sanskrit

> > > > > > grammar

> > > > > > > > give

> > > > > > > > > > a go

> > > > > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that can make interpretation of a shloka

> or

> > > > sutra

> > > > > > fit

> > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposition.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any of the Shodasha Vargas of a rasi can

> be

> > > > > > referred to

> > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > Varga,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > but as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far as I know in astrology, when one talks

> > > of

> > > > Varga,

> > > > > > > > without

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > qualifying

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it, or Amshas that generally refers to

> > > navamsha

> > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dwadashaamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another reason that we can not agree, or

> > > seem to

> > > > > > agree,

> > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > you are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reluctant to call a navamsha by the

> > > nomenclature

> > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > rasi.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > This

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > makes it difficult to convey what I mean

> to

> > > say

> > > > in

> > > > > > > > English

> > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the language of the net and which both of

> us

> > > > know.

> > > > > > Now

> > > > > > > > > > since you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > do not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > want to use the word Mesha navamsha as

> Mesha

> > > is

> > > > a

> > > > > > rashi

> > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > logic it can not be a navamsha, it becomes

> > > > > > difficult to

> > > > > > > > > > convey

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > what I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understand by the texts.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will like to draw your attention to the

> > > > literal

> > > > > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi. It means a heap and nothing more. In

> > > > astrology

> > > > > > > > since

> > > > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > encompasses many stars that make up a

> > > nakshatra

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > 1/12th

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > division of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the zodiac is called a Rasi. Or at least

> > > this

> > > > is my

> > > > > > > > > > > > understanding

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason of using the word rasi for the

> 1/12th

> > > > > > division

> > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > zodiac.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not agree that by Chandra in Guru

> Varga

> > > it

> > > > is

> > > > > > meant

> > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandra is being seen. To me we are

> talking

> > > > about is

> > > > > > > > whether

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandra is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > falling in the Varga of Guru in which ever

> > > rasi

> > > > he

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > occupying.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > So in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Navamsha we see whether Chandra is

> occupying

> > > > Pisces

> > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > Sagittarius

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > navamsha. I also do not agree that there

> are

> > > > Vargas

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > Chandra

> > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of any

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > planet for that matter. The 16 Vargas that

> > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > talks

> > > > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that of a Rasi, beginning from the Rashi

> > > itself.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the Vargas are not owned by different

> > > > planets,

> > > > > > pray

> > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the sage

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tell us to see occupation of a friend, own

> > > etc.

> > > > > > Varga to

> > > > > > > > > > assess

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > strength of a planet in the Varga

> concerned?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have interacted with many astrologers of

> > > > > > yesteryears

> > > > > > > > (with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > respect to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > my age group) and have never found them

> > > > claiming the

> > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only lagna and planets.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you insist that sage Parashara gave the

> > > SU.

> > > > 52.-

> > > > > > > > " Tatra

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > bhrigwongaraka

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > varge paradarikaha " , perhaps you are

> > > referring

> > > > to

> > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > edition

> > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > BPHS

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that I do not have. However I do have that

> > > in

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > umpteen

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > texts on Jaimini that I do have in my

> > > library.

> > > > And

> > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > way,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > scholars have interpreted that to mean 9th

> > > from

> > > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the 2nd.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not agree that a graha can

> > > simultaneously

> > > > > > occupy

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars, simultaneously, as is

> being

> > > > > > suggested

> > > > > > > > > > whether in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in any of the Vargas. It could only occupy

> > > one

> > > > or

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > other.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have seen you arguing in favor of

> looking

> > > at

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > Shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grahas Venus and Mars. I would like you to

> > > look

> > > > at

> > > > > > all

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > six

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > charts

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whose Vargas together are referred as

> > > > Shadvargas and

> > > > > > > > try to

> > > > > > > > > > find

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > out

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whether they do indeed contain the 6

> Vargas

> > > of

> > > > Venus

> > > > > > > > and 6

> > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars. I am sure that you will find them to

> > > > contain

> > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > 5

> > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > each of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the grahas. Once you confirm this by

> looking

> > > at

> > > > the

> > > > > > 6

> > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > self,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tell me how one can look at Shadvargas of

> > > Venus

> > > > or

> > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested to be the interpretation of the

> > > sutra

> > > > that

> > > > > > > > you are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > referring to.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You may also be interested to know that

> > > > Parashara

> > > > > > talks

> > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > AK

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > falling in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Varga of Chandra, Mars or Venus also

> > > having

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > roving

> > > > > > > > > > eye

> > > > > > > > > > > > on

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > others

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wives. So the combination of Venus and

> Mars

> > > > being

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > giving

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the roving eye for other's wives, that you

> > > are

> > > > > > > > advancing as

> > > > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > standalone

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > principle, may not, necessarily, be the

> way

> > > the

> > > > sage

> > > > > > > > looked

> > > > > > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > their

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > interpretation.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Those were written by me.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am very dissappointed to see

> > > that ,inspite

> > > > of

> > > > > > > > repeating

> > > > > > > > > > > > numerus

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > times,you are unable to get what i am

> > > saying.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not talking about rashis lorded by

> > > > shukra or

> > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > here.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > am

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > talking about the shadvargas vargas of

> > > mars

> > > > and

> > > > > > > > shukra.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pls tell me what is the meaning of

> > > shadvargas

> > > > or

> > > > > > > > simply

> > > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lagna.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the rashi in which lagna is

> > > placed.The

> > > > > > > > navamshaka of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna,Trimshamshaka of Lagna etc.Can we

> > > see

> > > > any

> > > > > > > > lordship

> > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > say.Lagna does not own any rashi.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly when we say vargas of Venus -

> It

> > > > means

> > > > > > Rashi

> > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > Venus,Hora,navamshaka,drekkana,trimshamshaka

> > > > etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shadvarga is never the rashi owned by a

> > > > > > planet.Then

> > > > > > > > Lagna

> > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > never

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have shadvarga.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say,Chandra in

> Guru

> > > > > > Varga - We

> > > > > > > > > > are not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > seeing

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the shadvarga of Guru,but that of

> > > chandra.Is

> > > > > > chandra

> > > > > > > > > > placed in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guru

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rashi?Is Chandra navamshaka in Guru

> > > Rashi.Is

> > > > > > Chandra

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamshaka in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guru Rashi etc is what we check.If so

> > > chandras

> > > > > > vargas

> > > > > > > > > > fall in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > guru

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashis or we say chandra is in

> guruvargas.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the same reason schoplars of

> > > yesteryears

> > > > > > always

> > > > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for our natal Lagna and Planets.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand you are taking them as

> > > > owned by

> > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > > planet.Every

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > shadvarga that derive is like that.You

> may

> > > > check

> > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > shri

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Narasimha,how he is deriving it for his

> > > > software.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the same reason Bhrigu and Angara

> can

> > > have

> > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > together

> > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rashi which is 2nd from Karakamsha.Sage

> > > > clearly

> > > > > > talks

> > > > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vargas from both.Moreover the next

> shloka

> > > is

> > > > > > talking

> > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus together or aspecting the 2nd from

> > > > > > karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we go by your

> > > > explanation,we

> > > > > > > > have to

> > > > > > > > > > opt

> > > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just one among shukra or Mars which is

> not

> > > > > > > > proper.Their

> > > > > > > > > > Joint

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > influence creates sexual drive.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I request you to kindly read this with

> > > care.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rspect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The below remarks are not from my mail

> > > at

> > > > all.

> > > > > > I do

> > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > know

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think I would write that. I am sure

> you

> > > know

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > my

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > style

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of writing at all.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " >From my experience -Mars + Venus

> > > creates

> > > > > > certin

> > > > > > > > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why

> are

> > > you

> > > > > > going

> > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > owned by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just one of them and that too without

> a

> > > > > > planetary

> > > > > > > > link

> > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > really

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > worrying me.Shri Rath has translated

> so,i

> > > > > > agree.But

> > > > > > > > i

> > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will

> > > definitely

> > > > > > correct

> > > > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > benfit

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of jyotish community. "

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As to why I said they could not be

> > > having

> > > > their

> > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > together in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi or Bhava does not need any deeper

> > > > > > explanation.

> > > > > > > > If

> > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > looking

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at the 2nd from Karakamsha in the rasi

> > > > chart,

> > > > > > as you

> > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > right, you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > could not have both Mesha and

> Vrishabha

> > > or

> > > > Tula

> > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > Vrishchika

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd from the Karakamsha, is that not

> so?

> > > > > > Similarly

> > > > > > > > if in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the 2nd from Karakamsha is to be seen,

> > > the

> > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > > could be

> > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > navamshas.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I though you meant so.Because in

> > > > subsequent

> > > > > > lines

> > > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > see

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and Karakamsha being used for the

> same

> > > > > > > > purpose.But if

> > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there are other places where swamsha

> > > is

> > > > used

> > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagnamsha ,then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i can trust you if you can point me

> to

> > > > that.

> > > > > > This

> > > > > > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > be a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problem and in no way it will affect

> > > us.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars can ofcourse have

> their

> > > > Vargas

> > > > > > in a

> > > > > > > > > > single

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashi or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bhava.Venus can have navamsha

> > > there,Mars

> > > > can

> > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there,Venus can have Trimshamsha

> > > > there,Mars

> > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there,they both can have drekkana

> > > there

> > > > etc

> > > > > > etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus sage is talking about Bhrigu

> and

> > > > Angara

> > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > (as

> > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > identified gramattically) having

> varga

> > > > there

> > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > it is

> > > > > > > > > > > > very

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > much

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you note the next line -Sage is

> > > talking

> > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > > Venus

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > joining or aspecting the 2nd from

> > > > Karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From my experience -Mars + Venus

> > > creates

> > > > > > certin

> > > > > > > > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why

> > > are

> > > > you

> > > > > > going

> > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > owned by just one of them and that

> too

> > > > > > without a

> > > > > > > > > > planetary

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > link is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really worrying me.Shri Rath has

> > > > translated

> > > > > > so,i

> > > > > > > > > > > > agree.But i

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will

> > > > definitely

> > > > > > > > correct

> > > > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > benfit of jyotish community.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am surprised as to why you say

> > > so.That

> > > > they

> > > > > > > > cannot

> > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > together.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pardeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > > 40>,

> > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have never said that I do not

> > > think

> > > > that

> > > > > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different where the context

> demands

> > > so.

> > > > At

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > > time I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammar can be put to rest to in

> the

> > > > name of

> > > > > > > > > > context,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > without

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sound

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course if you want contextual

> > > > translation

> > > > > > > > only,

> > > > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > one can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > certainly say that the " Meshadi

> > > raashige

> > > > > > > > swaamshe "

> > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > always be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > translated as " Falling in Mesha

> > > > navamsha in

> > > > > > > > Mesha

> > > > > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc. " .

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way " Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka

> > > > Varge " ,

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mention, does

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean varga of both Venus and mars,

> > > but

> > > > of

> > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > Venus OR

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > due to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the grammar only. varga of two

> > > planets

> > > > can

> > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > fall

> > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bhava/amsha/rasi whether in rasi

> or

> > > > > > Navamsha or

> > > > > > > > any

> > > > > > > > > > > > other

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Grammatically,what you are

> saying

> > > is

> > > > also

> > > > > > > > true.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But Jyotish defintions play a

> > > > preceding

> > > > > > role

> > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > choosing

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammatical meaning.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example one meaning of

> > > > labhe ,Swamshe

> > > > > > etc

> > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 11th

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But if we go by that we will

> > > > definitely

> > > > > > > > translate

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamshe in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > meshadi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashige as ''in

> Swamsha'',thereby

> > > > > > translating

> > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > full

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart.This as you too agree,then

> > > > cannot

> > > > > > pass

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > test,of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > subsequent shlokas.I understand

> > > gladly

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > too

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > agree that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha and karakamsha are the

> > > same.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So the context decides

> > > plural/singular

> > > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > necessarily

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the ''E''

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as you have rightly mentioned.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But in essence what i want to

> say

> > > > is ''E''

> > > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > always

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean ''in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the'' as you have

> > > > interpreted.Labheshe is

> > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > example.Karake

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus it can very well mean

> Varga of

> > > > > > Shukra and

> > > > > > > > > > Mars-

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > which can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > six vargas or one varga.(Not

> > > lordship)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra -(There) In the second

> from

> > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga or Vargas of Venus and

> Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now why should we need two

> > > > qualifiesrs for

> > > > > > > > > > destination

> > > > > > > > > > > > (1)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from karakamsha 2)in the vargas

> > > of?)-

> > > > if

> > > > > > we had

> > > > > > > > > > another

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your interpretation is

> right.That

> > > > planet

> > > > > > will

> > > > > > > > > > answer

> > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > question -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who is in the vargas of ?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly - Swamshad dhane

> Shukrar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Swamshad dhane is already

> pointing

> > > to

> > > > > > > > destination-

> > > > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > need

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > another ''in the'' vargas of.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say in

> the

> > > 2nd

> > > > > > from

> > > > > > > > > > > > karakamsha if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mars and venus are present,it

> fits

> > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammatically.Moreover

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i had

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentioned rashi lordship without

> > > > planetary

> > > > > > > > link

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (placement/amsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is too general.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In

> > >

> <%40> <%

> 40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> 40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > > > 40>,

> > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I may be wrong but the " E " by

> > > itself

> > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > point

> > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > word Shadvarga indicating 6

> > > Vargas

> > > > that

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > group

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (though it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more than one unit) and

> > > so " Varge " ,

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > singular is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " E " means " in " . I would be

> happy

> > > if

> > > > an

> > > > > > > > example

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of " Varge "

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plural

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can be given.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not at all think that

> > > Vargaka

> > > > or

> > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > singular and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargake

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge is plural, at all. Both

> the

> > > > > > manner of

> > > > > > > > > > using

> > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > indicates singular. it is no

> use

> > > > > > projecting

> > > > > > > > > > what is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > clearly

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saptami

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vibhakti and singular as

> being a

> > > > plural

> > > > > > > > word. If

> > > > > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dvivachana it may

> > > become " VargyoH "

> > > > > > > > or " VargeSu "

> > > > > > > > > > (for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bahuvachan)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge. Perhaps some Sanskrit

> > > > scholar on

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > list

> > > > > > > > > > > > would

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > like

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > comment

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on this.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, much as I would like it to

> > > > resolve,

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > issue

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > remains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unresolved.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will give you a relevant

> > > > example to

> > > > > > > > explain

> > > > > > > > > > how

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > VarGE

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > context of plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna Shad-VargaKE - Is

> > > pointing

> > > > to

> > > > > > all

> > > > > > > > > > vargas -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plural.You

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > may

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > note

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that the grammatical ending

> is

> > > > > > with ''E''

> > > > > > > > > > showing

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > plurals

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expressed with such an

> ending.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now from Vrishamsha''Ka''

> and

> > > > Tulamsha

> > > > > > > > > > example we

> > > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > conclude

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VargaKA and VarGA can be

> used

> > > for

> > > > the

> > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > > purpose in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ekavachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > singular form and VargaKE

> and

> > > > VarGE

> > > > > > can be

> > > > > > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bahuvachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plural form.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope this may help us in

> > > > resolving

> > > > > > our

> > > > > > > > > > issue.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------

> ---

> > > ---

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this

> incoming

> > > > > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus

> > > Database:

> > > > > > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this

> > > message

> > > > have

> > > > > > been

> > > > > > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------

> ---

> > > ---

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

> > > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus

> Database:

> > > > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message

> > > have

> > > > been

> > > > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---

> ---

> > > ---

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

> > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message

> have

> > > been

> > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------

> ---

> > > ---

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have

> been

> > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----------

> ---

> > > ---

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------

> ---

> > > ---

> > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> 269.10.2/890 -

> > > > Release

> > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > -------------------

> ---

> > > ---

> > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/890 -

> > > Release

> > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandrashekhar ji

 

Kindly read what was the opinion of dashadhyayi before you may

criticize the valuable text.After mentioning the whe shloka as

one,the author said Thatha cha Saravalyam.

 

Now as both of us understand cha as ''and'',does it mean the whole

shloka is one or are they two,especially as cha comes

after ''shaukre -belonging to shukra''.

 

As you were not happy with Dashadhyayi,there were views from jeeva

sharma,sruthakeerthi,Garga(giantly figures).Now Saravli has been

quoted.

 

Respect

Pradeep

 

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> If you think " ca " does not mean AND, in Sanskrit then there may not

be

> any point in discussing this any further. And if translations of

all

> other learned scholars are to be rejected in favour of

Dashaadhyaayi,

> then there is no use discussing what Parashara said too as

Dashaadhyaayi

> is a commentary on Brihat jataka.

>

> Personally, I do not think that only Dashaadhyaayi encompasses all

the

> vedic astrological knowledge though it is one amongst the respected

texts.

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >

> > If you remember our first discussion,which is present in the

> > archives,you were only mentioning about shukra and saturn in

> > paraspara amsha and aspecting each other.You had added that these

are

> > aspects in Trimshamsha chakra.

> >

> > I had then quoted the second line which points to Lagna being

that of

> > Shukra and its navamsha in ghata rashi.

> >

> > For which your reply was we are looking into different texts.

> >

> > You have only quoted the 2nd line from Saravali.

> >

> > The full shloka in Saravali is as follows -

> > Shukra Sithau yadi paraspara bhaga samsthau

> > shaukre cha drishti pathagavudaye ghatamshe

> >

> > Thus the first line does not contain any aspect mentioned.How can

we

> > say that the first line is stand alone.Do you say if Shukra and

> > Saturn are in each others amsha a lady will behave like this.

> > The second line makes it complete.The lagna should be that of

> > shukra,saturn and venus should aspect each other,and lagnamsha

should

> > fall in Ghatamsha.

> >

> > Thus Dashadhyayi kara is crystal clear on what Saravali is

> > saying.Atleast for this shloka i feel there is no ambiguity

needed.

> >

> > Respect

> > Pradeep

> >

> > Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > If Dashaadhyaayi thinks Saravali is a standard text to rely

upon (

> > as

> > > you have quoted a reference therein quoting Saravali to support

> > some

> > > interpretation) why say that other concepts in Saravali are

wrong?

> > > Saravali says " Shaukre ca drishtipathagaavudaye ghataamshe " etc.

> > > indicating the necessity of exchange of amshas and mutual aspect

> > between

> > > Shukra and Shani as concurrent condition for the first yoga to

> > fructify.

> > > And then goes on to say that if for a lagna having rasi of

Shukra

> > and

> > > navamsha of Shani similar results would ensue. GhataaMshe has

been

> > > interpreted as the amsha of Shani and not merely amsha of

Kumbha by

> > many

> > > translators.

> > >

> > > I can not comment on the interpretation of Dashaadhyaayikar of

the

> > > shloka but the shloka from Brihat Jataka that I have also says

> > > " driksamsthaavasitasito parasparaamshe shoke vaa yadi ghata

> > > raashisambhavoMshaH. " followed by the next line that I did not

find

> > > necessary to quote as it does not talk about the yoga but only

the

> > > results, which you have already quoted and I felt may not be

> > necessary

> > > to post on line.

> > >

> > > That there are two distinct yogas is also not new to

translators of

> > > Brihat jataka. Since you accept that the first line does say

about

> > > occupation of each others amsha AND aspect on each other is

indeed

> > > covered in the first line, the reluctance to accept aspects in

> > specific

> > > cases is something that I am not able to understand.

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > >

> > > > I can clearly understand your position.Especially as you have

> > > > said,the texts that we are referring to are different.Here

comes

> > the

> > > > importance of Dashadhyayi.After my explanation you can also

see

> > that

> > > > it is not only dashadhyayi ,but Saravali as well is having the

> > same

> > > > opinion on the shloka explained below.

> > > >

> > > > As i have mentioned yesterday,dashadhyayi is not covering

just the

> > > > first 10 chapters as the name suggests.For example let me

take a

> > > > chapter towards the end ,chapter 22-Sthree Jataka Adhyaya.

> > > >

> > > > Thalakkulathu Govinda Bhattathiri has given

interpretations,for

> > all

> > > > the shlokas from 1 through 16,except shloka 13, while

interpreting

> > > > chapters 1 through 10. Shloka 13 as you can see is pretty

straight

> > > > forward.

> > > >

> > > > Now let us take the shloka which as per you is referring

> > > > to ''Trimshamsha Chakra'' with aspects therein.Firstly the

results

> > > > for planets being placed in rashis belonging to Mesha

onwards,and

> > > > within that Trimshamshas belonging to Mars onwards is

explained

> > and

> > > > ends by shloka 6.

> > > >

> > > > Now let us take

> > > >

> > > > ''Driksamstha VasithaSithau Parasparamshe

> > > > Shaukre Va yadi Ghata Rashi Sambhavomsha''

> > > > Next 2 lines explains the result.

> > > >

> > > > As per you,there is only a reference regarding Venus and

Saturn

> > > > aspecting each other and also in each others Amsha.This is

covered

> > > > in the first line.My worry is where has the second line gone

in

> > the

> > > > text that you are having.Either it was not interpreted or it

was

> > > > inadvertently got missed out from printing.

> > > >

> > > > Now Dashadhyayi says -

> > > >

> > > > Driksamsthau ithyadi Yoga dvayam - Two Yogas.First one is

> > > > corresponding to the first line as we have seen.

> > > >

> > > > Shaukre Rashau Yadi Kumbhamshe Udethi ..Thatha dvitheeyam -

the

> > > > second.Meaning ,The Ascendant should be either Tula or

Vrishabha

> > and

> > > > it should have Kumbhamsha(Kumbha is Ghata - Ghata Rashi

> > > > Sambhavomsha).

> > > >

> > > > Now the author says, as per some these two can be taken as one

> > yoga

> > > > as well(Saravali too says so).

> > > >

> > > > Parasparamshagatha Vasitha Sithou Paraspara Drishtau Shaukre

> > > > Rashavudayathi Kumbhamshakashcha Bhavathi Yadee - then the

> > > > result.And the author says -T hatha Cha Saravalyam.And quotes

> > > > corresponding shloka from Saravali,where again the said line

is

> > > > present(sanskrit).Thus it says - For a Lady to have such a

strong

> > > > sexual desire - Purusha Veshadhari(One dressign up as a man -

thus

> > > > lesbian),her ascendant should belong to Venus and the amsha

of her

> > > > ascendant should fall in Kumbha Rashi,and in her chart Saturn

and

> > > > Venus should aspect each other and also have exchange of

amshas.

> > > >

> > > > Thus you see,in either case there is a line which is missing

in

> > your

> > > > book,which helps us to understand that it is not a varga

chakra.I

> > > > dont know how it happened.

> > > >

> > > > Thus if Dashadhyayi was not there,then i would have also not

got

> > any

> > > > opportunity to understand this in such detail.This is the

beauty

> > of

> > > > this text and as you know without any value ParashnaMarga

will not

> > > > praise it with such a high regard.The rest of the text is

great

> > and

> > > > explains every concept with authority,quoting many sources.

> > > >

> > > > I consider you with great regard(Gurusthana) and holds respect

> > > > towards your views and analysis.You may kindly understand

that,i

> > > > will not misquote and misrepresent,especially when the

subject is

> > > > Jyotish.If some others in this list is having mistrust,they

should

> > > > understand that i am not the only keralite living in this

universe

> > > > and they can seek help from others to see if i am cheating.I

have

> > no

> > > > hatred towards their words.If it brings happiness to them let

them

> > > > continue with false allegations.

> > > >

> > > > I will prepare the paper and then would request your good

self to

> > > > review.I am so thankful that you have tested me with tough

> > questions

> > > > and logic,which has helped me to learn more.

> > > >

> > > > Respect

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>, " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > >

> > > > > Purna drishte Purna Yogam Ardha Drishte ardhameva cha

> > > > > Pada drishte Padayogamiti gyeyam kramat phalam.

> > > > >

> > > > > Is mentioned and hence the aspects are not about Rashi

drishti.

> > > > >

> > > > > Now as i have mentioned in the past,though the name is

> > > > > dashadhyayi,the author covers shlokas,from most of the

chapters

> > as

> > > > > and when he finds some interrelationship or link.This i

consider

> > > > as a

> > > > > real blessing.Now how amshakas are interpreted,has been

> > > > > demonstrated ,for numerous contexts,and thus forming a

guideline

> > > > for

> > > > > other shloka interpretations.

> > > > >

> > > > > I will see the shlokas,and will write back.

> > > > >

> > > > > Respect

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Transits are to be seen no doubt from the rasis

synonymous to

> > > > the

> > > > > > navamsha rasis, but when it is sphuta it is of the

navamshesha

> > > > and

> > > > > not

> > > > > > the rasis. There is a difference between the two.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I have already said I do not consider aspects in D-charts,

> > > > unless

> > > > > > specifically mentioned in some yogas, and also that

barring

> > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > charts, in other varga charts I look at rashi aspects.

That

> > does

> > > > > not

> > > > > > mean I should close my eyes to what is written in other

> > > > respected

> > > > > texts.

> > > > > > That only means I look at charts from a different angle.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > There is nothing in the lagna shadvargake shloka to

indicate

> > > > graded

> > > > > > aspects and so it does not rule out rashi drishti at all.

Ans

> > > > since

> > > > > you

> > > > > > have quoted both Parashara and Jaimini you should know

that

> > > > rashi

> > > > > > drishtis are valid in Parashara too and exclusively so in

> > > > Jaimini.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Your translation and mine of the shlokas differ and that

is

> > why

> > > > > there is

> > > > > > no agreement. If you expect Dashaadhyaayi to give

divisional

> > > > charts

> > > > > and

> > > > > > their interpretations, that is not possible as Varaha

Mihira

> > on

> > > > > whose

> > > > > > work it is only a commentary does not speak of it and it

is

> > > > > commentary

> > > > > > on only 10 of the 18 adhayaayas of Brihat jataka. If you

read

> > > > > Brihat

> > > > > > jataka carefully, you will see reference o aspects in

> > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > there.

> > > > > > Since you have many times claimed superiority of

Dashaadhyaayi

> > > > over

> > > > > many

> > > > > > of the more ancient and respected classics, I find it

strange

> > as

> > > > to

> > > > > why

> > > > > > you do not want to accept what is said in the original

text on

> > > > > which

> > > > > > Dashaadhyaayi is only a commentary and that too on 10

> > adhyaayas

> > > > as

> > > > > the

> > > > > > name suggests (that does not, of course, make it any less

> > > > > respectable).

> > > > > > There are many references to planets being placed in a

> > navamsha,

> > > > > which

> > > > > > is not identical with the rasi whose name the navamsha

enjoys,

> > > > and

> > > > > the

> > > > > > results from them in the 21st adhyaaya. How do you map

back

> > such

> > > > a

> > > > > > navamsha to the rasi and what should be the logic? You

also

> > see

> > > > > > reference to Guru occupying own Trimshamsha, irrespective

of

> > > > rasi

> > > > > in the

> > > > > > same adhayaaya. There are too many references like this to

> > > > question

> > > > > the

> > > > > > theory that the amshas need always be mapped back to

identical

> > > > rasi

> > > > > in

> > > > > > rasi chart.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Could you tell why this reluctance to accept Varaha

Mihira?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Meshamshe, Vrishamshe Transit results can be seen from

Mesha

> > > > and

> > > > > > > Vrishabha rashis.Thus you are aware of what i am

> > > > saying.Moreover

> > > > > we

> > > > > > > have seen paparkshe.we have seen meshadi rashige

swamshe.we

> > > > have

> > > > > seen

> > > > > > > that bhrigwonkaraka varge ,as per your understanding

cannot

> > > > > satisfy

> > > > > > > both mars and venus.The very next shloka is talking

about

> > mars

> > > > and

> > > > > > > venus yuti or aspecting.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Now we can forget all these as you are not williing to

> > accept

> > > > > > > rashi,riksha etc as valid reasoning.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > We have seen Lagna shadvargake shloka with aspectual

> > > > > grades,proving

> > > > > > > that they ae not rashi drishtis.Couple of days back and

many

> > > > > times in

> > > > > > > the past,i have heard from you that you don't support

> > aspects

> > > > in

> > > > > > > Vargas.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > If you still have the sam views,then to understand

> > shadvargake

> > > > > > > shloka,we have to see planets aspecting lagna in ''six

> > > > charts''.As

> > > > > > > lagna can fall in any rashi,you have to accept aspects

fully

> > > > in

> > > > > all

> > > > > > > Varga charts.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > This is relevant to our discussion as lagnamsha is also

> > part of

> > > > > > > shadvargas of lagna.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > As you are aware ,the BPHS translator too has expressed

his

> > > > > concern.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > How could I think shadvarga of lagna is shadvarga of

> > rashi?

> > > > > Lagna

> > > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > > point on the eastern horizon at the time of birth of a

> > > > jataka.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > There is no dispute about what is lagnamsha and what

is

> > > > > karakamsha

> > > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > all. At the same time when reference is to a graha

> > falling in

> > > > > > > Lagnamsha

> > > > > > > > it refers to the navamsha rasi (or sector ruled by

one of

> > > > the

> > > > > rasis

> > > > > > > of a

> > > > > > > > planet, barring Sun and Chandra if you like it that

way)

> > in

> > > > > which

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > lagnamsha falls. Now that being so where is the shubha

> > graha

> > > > > > > supposed to

> > > > > > > > fall in the shloka I quoted? Same with the Shubh

graha in

> > > > > > > Karakamsha and

> > > > > > > > needing drishti of shubha graha on it. It is easy to

say

> > that

> > > > > > > these

> > > > > > > > need to be seen in rasi, but for lack of the

reference to

> > > > rasi,

> > > > > > > there,

> > > > > > > > there is no reason to assume that it does not refer to

> > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > rasi.

> > > > > > > > The reference to grahas

in " Meshaamshe " , " Vrishabhaamshe "

> > > > etc

> > > > > are

> > > > > > > quite

> > > > > > > > clear, in BPHS.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Of course Yes,you are correct.Varga is found for

this

> > > > bindu

> > > > > and in

> > > > > > > > > the case of planets their degree decides.The rest

you

> > have

> > > > > stated

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > also as per definition.My point was made under the

> > > > impression

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > you have a view that,shadvarga of Lagna is

shadvarga of

> > a

> > > > > > > rashi.If so

> > > > > > > > > it is not.Shad varga is found for Lagna bindu.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > The full Rashi/Kshethra in which Lagna bindu falls

> > becomes

> > > > its

> > > > > > > first

> > > > > > > > > Varga.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > The Translation is entiterely correct and no one can

> > > > > > > contradict.This

> > > > > > > > > is similar to one planet aspecting shadvargas of

lagna.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Lagnamsha is already covered in the shadvargas of

> > > > > > > lagna.Karakamsha is

> > > > > > > > > similar too.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Now let us see it on a chart.Karkamasha is in

> > > > Dhanu.Jupiter is

> > > > > > > placed

> > > > > > > > > in Mithuna Rashi.Shubha graha is aspecting

Karakamsha

> > Lagna

> > > > > > > > > (Rashi).Similarly Lagnamsha.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > You are already aware of the rules for aspects.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>,

Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I see your point of view. anyway even within

> > shadvargas

> > > > we

> > > > > look

> > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > degree of a planet falling within a certain span

of

> > > > degrees

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > particular bindu.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I agree that rashi is a Varga and my question is

if

> > one

> > > > can

> > > > > > > look at

> > > > > > > > > > aspects in one Varga why not in other Vargas? I am

> > sure

> > > > you

> > > > > know

> > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > personally I use navamsha to find only the

strength of

> > > > > grahas,

> > > > > > > but

> > > > > > > > > there

> > > > > > > > > > is no reason to rule out aspects in Navamshas or

other

> > > > > charts

> > > > > > > > > totally.

> > > > > > > > > > One of the raj yogas mentioned by Parashara talks

of

> > > > aspect

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > shubha

> > > > > > > > > > grahas on the karakamsha and Lagnamsha which

should

> > also

> > > > be

> > > > > > > > > tenanted by

> > > > > > > > > > Shubha grahas, leaving no doubt as to where the

> > aspects

> > > > are

> > > > > to

> > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > seen.

> > > > > > > > > > And for the record the translation to that effect

is

> > by

> > > > an

> > > > > > > eminent

> > > > > > > > > > astrologer who was Professor of astrology in

Banaras

> > > > Hindu

> > > > > > > > > University.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Lagna as a bindu was mentioned for driving home

the

> > > > > shadvarga

> > > > > > > > > > > calculations,if any members were having

doubts.For

> > > > > shadvarga

> > > > > > > > > > > calculation of planets too we need the bindu or

> > degree

> > > > of

> > > > > a

> > > > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > > > > within a rashi, as you are aware.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > We have to look at Rashis.This is so because

Rashi

> > > > (one 30

> > > > > > > degree

> > > > > > > > > > > sector ) is the first varga.As this Varga is

> > > > synonymous

> > > > > with

> > > > > > > Bhava

> > > > > > > > > > > houses are analysed w.r to Rashis.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > If lagna is a bindu a you propose, and nothing

> > more,

> > > > > then

> > > > > > > how

> > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > > > indicate an entire rasi? Now if this is

correct,

> > and

> > > > > > > technically

> > > > > > > > > > > it is,

> > > > > > > > > > > > then by your reckoning there is no need to

look at

> > > > rasis

> > > > > > > too. Is

> > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > what you mean to say?

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > If shadvargas are not related to the portion

> > falling

> > > > in

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > lagna

> > > > > > > > > > > rasis,

> > > > > > > > > > > > which holds the degree of lagna Madhya, then

it

> > > > appears

> > > > > we

> > > > > > > must

> > > > > > > > > ask

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > sages to redefine Vargas. I doubt they need

our

> > > > advise.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > There was a purpose.I just wanted to

explain it

> > to

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > > members if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > some of them are not sure on what shadvarga

of

> > > > lagna

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > how it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > is calculated.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > As you have said Vargas are divisions of a

> > > > rashi.But

> > > > > > > > > shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna is not the Vargas falling in

Lagna.Here

> > > > lagna is

> > > > > > > not a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > rashi,but a bindu.Vargas are found from a

> > > > degree.The

> > > > > > > degree

> > > > > > > > > of a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > planet or degree of lagna.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > As you may know we do notneed six charts to

> > > > dtermine

> > > > > > > > > shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > lagna.All we need is the degree of lagna

and the

> > > > rashi

> > > > > > > rising.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us take an example.Lagna is at 11

degrees in

> > > > > dhanu.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us find the shadvargas of Lagna with th

help

> > > > of

> > > > > rising

> > > > > > > > > rashi

> > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > degree.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > 1st Varga - The Rashi in which Lagna bindu

is

> > > > > falling -

> > > > > > > Dhanu

> > > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd Varga - The Hora in which Lagna bindu is

> > > > falling -

> > > > > As

> > > > > > > 11

> > > > > > > > > > > degrees

> > > > > > > > > > > > > falls in the 1st half of dhanu - Surya Hora

> > > > > > > > > > > > > 3rd Varga - The drekkana in which Lagna

bindu is

> > > > > falling -

> > > > > > > As

> > > > > > > > > 11

> > > > > > > > > > > > > degrees falls in the 2nd 1/3rd of dhanu -

> > Drekkana

> > > > is

> > > > > > > Mesha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > 4th Varga - As 11 degrees falls in the 3rd

> > > > > > > saptamsha ,Lagna

> > > > > > > > > > > saptamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > is Kumbha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Similraly - Lagna navamsha is Karka,Lagna

> > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > dhanu.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus the purpose of whole exercise was to

say

> > that

> > > > > when

> > > > > > > we say

> > > > > > > > > > > > > shadvargas of Lagna or Mars,it does not

mean the

> > > > > rashis

> > > > > > > owned

> > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna or Mars.But the Rashis on towhich

they are

> > > > > > > placed,having

> > > > > > > > > > > > > hora,drekkana etc etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas of Mars in the 2nd Rashi from

karakamsha

> > > > too

> > > > > is no

> > > > > > > > > > > differet.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > There are many meanings,that is why Rashi is

> > > > called as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kshethra /Riksha /havana etc.But i don't

think

> > > > sage

> > > > > will

> > > > > > > use

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > saword to represent something belonging to

same

> > > > class.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > For example sage will not use ''sva'' to

mean

> > 2nd

> > > > as

> > > > > well

> > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > 3rd.Then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > we cannot interpret.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly Rashi and navamsha will not be

> > > > represented

> > > > > > > using the

> > > > > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > > > word.Rashi/Kshethra/Riksha/Bhvana/Lagna etc

are

> > > > > synonyms

> > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > ifthey

> > > > > > > > > > > > > are used for navamsha then what is the whole

> > > > purpose

> > > > > > > behind

> > > > > > > > > > > defintion.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand sva was used for iems from

> > > > different

> > > > > > > > > classes.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > This wasin mind while making such a

statement.I

> > > > will

> > > > > try

> > > > > > > my

> > > > > > > > > best

> > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > polish my style of writing.I accept my

> > limitations

> > > > in

> > > > > > > writing.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have not understood your question or the

> > > > intent

> > > > > behind

> > > > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas are divisions, within a rasi,

ruled by

> > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > grahas.

> > > > > > > > > > > So

> > > > > > > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > one wants t look at Vargas falling in

lagna

> > the

> > > > shad

> > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > will

> > > > > > > > > > > > > mean

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the rasi equivalent occurring at lagna

> > position

> > > > in

> > > > > the 6

> > > > > > > > > > > divisional

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > charts of Rashi, Hora, Dreshkana,

Navamsha,

> > > > > > > Dwaadashamsha

> > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamsha. Or at least this is what I

have

> > > > learnt.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sages did not use words in vain or

context. I

> > > > > agree. But

> > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean they used the words to mean only one

> > thing

> > > > > always.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I never said that the meaning can be

changed

> > to

> > > > > suit our

> > > > > > > > > > > > > convenience and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would request you not to attribute such

> > > > > sentiments to

> > > > > > > me.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > However I do say that word are used in

> > different

> > > > > > > contexts to

> > > > > > > > > > > mean

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > different things, especially in Sanskrit

> > texts of

> > > > > > > Jyotish. I

> > > > > > > > > > > have,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > just

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a few minutes back use of " Sva " with

different

> > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > places by Varaha Mihira to you. I hope

you do

> > > > not

> > > > > also

> > > > > > > > > attribute

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > words that you attributed to me to the

> > venerated

> > > > > Varaha

> > > > > > > > > Mihira.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar,.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pls tell me what you mean by shadvargas

of

> > > > > lagna.How

> > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > find

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them.Do you go by ownership or placement

> > > > > > > > > > > > > (Rashi/navamsha/dwadshamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc).

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are shlokas in Varahamihiras text

> > which

> > > > > > > > > says ,Okarkshe

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Purushamshakae.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which means in Ojarashi and Oja amsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As per me sages will not use any words

out

> > of

> > > > > > > context.If

> > > > > > > > > he

> > > > > > > > > > > wants

> > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > say amsha he will mention it.He will

not use

> > > > > Rashi to

> > > > > > > > > mean as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > amsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ojarkshe is Oja Rashi.Similarly

Paparkshe is

> > > > Papa

> > > > > > > Rashi.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you want to say as per our

conveninece we

> > > > can

> > > > > > > change

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of riksha/rashi/bhavana/bhavas as

navamsha

> > > > then i

> > > > > > > cannot

> > > > > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anything.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can only respect your views.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will tell you why that happens. You

> > begin

> > > > with

> > > > > > > quoting

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then give a sutra from Jaimini as

being

> > said

> > > > by

> > > > > > > > > Parashara.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Interpretation of sutras is not the

> > easiest

> > > > of

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > things,

> > > > > > > > > > > more

> > > > > > > > > > > > > so

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jaimini's Upadesha sutras. That the

sutras

> > > > use

> > > > > > > > > KaTaPaYaadi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > encryption

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > makes them even more difficult to

> > interpret.

> > > > I

> > > > > am

> > > > > > > sure

> > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > noticed

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this when Sreenadh interpreted the

> > > > KaTaPaYaadi

> > > > > > > Varga in

> > > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > wrong

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fashion.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then there is your insistence to let

> > Sanskrit

> > > > > > > grammar

> > > > > > > > > give

> > > > > > > > > > > a go

> > > > > > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that can make interpretation of a

shloka

> > or

> > > > > sutra

> > > > > > > fit

> > > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposition.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any of the Shodasha Vargas of a rasi

can

> > be

> > > > > > > referred to

> > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far as I know in astrology, when one

talks

> > > > of

> > > > > Varga,

> > > > > > > > > without

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > qualifying

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it, or Amshas that generally refers to

> > > > navamsha

> > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dwadashaamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another reason that we can not agree,

or

> > > > seem to

> > > > > > > agree,

> > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reluctant to call a navamsha by the

> > > > nomenclature

> > > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > rasi.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > makes it difficult to convey what I

mean

> > to

> > > > say

> > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > English

> > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the language of the net and which

both of

> > us

> > > > > know.

> > > > > > > Now

> > > > > > > > > > > since you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > want to use the word Mesha navamsha as

> > Mesha

> > > > is

> > > > > a

> > > > > > > rashi

> > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > logic it can not be a navamsha, it

becomes

> > > > > > > difficult to

> > > > > > > > > > > convey

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understand by the texts.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will like to draw your attention to

the

> > > > > literal

> > > > > > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi. It means a heap and nothing

more. In

> > > > > astrology

> > > > > > > > > since

> > > > > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > encompasses many stars that make up a

> > > > nakshatra

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > 1/12th

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > division of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the zodiac is called a Rasi. Or at

least

> > > > this

> > > > > is my

> > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason of using the word rasi for the

> > 1/12th

> > > > > > > division

> > > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > zodiac.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not agree that by Chandra in Guru

> > Varga

> > > > it

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > meant

> > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandra is being seen. To me we are

> > talking

> > > > > about is

> > > > > > > > > whether

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandra is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > falling in the Varga of Guru in which

ever

> > > > rasi

> > > > > he

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > occupying.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Navamsha we see whether Chandra is

> > occupying

> > > > > Pisces

> > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sagittarius

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > navamsha. I also do not agree that

there

> > are

> > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > Chandra

> > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of any

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > planet for that matter. The 16 Vargas

that

> > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > > talks

> > > > > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that of a Rasi, beginning from the

Rashi

> > > > itself.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the Vargas are not owned by

different

> > > > > planets,

> > > > > > > pray

> > > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the sage

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tell us to see occupation of a

friend, own

> > > > etc.

> > > > > > > Varga to

> > > > > > > > > > > assess

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > strength of a planet in the Varga

> > concerned?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have interacted with many

astrologers of

> > > > > > > yesteryears

> > > > > > > > > (with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > respect to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > my age group) and have never found

them

> > > > > claiming the

> > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only lagna and planets.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you insist that sage Parashara

gave the

> > > > SU.

> > > > > 52.-

> > > > > > > > > " Tatra

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bhrigwongaraka

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > varge paradarikaha " , perhaps you are

> > > > referring

> > > > > to

> > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > edition

> > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BPHS

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that I do not have. However I do have

that

> > > > in

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > umpteen

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > texts on Jaimini that I do have in my

> > > > library.

> > > > > And

> > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > way,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > scholars have interpreted that to

mean 9th

> > > > from

> > > > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the 2nd.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not agree that a graha can

> > > > simultaneously

> > > > > > > occupy

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars, simultaneously, as is

> > being

> > > > > > > suggested

> > > > > > > > > > > whether in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in any of the Vargas. It could only

occupy

> > > > one

> > > > > or

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > other.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have seen you arguing in favor of

> > looking

> > > > at

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > Shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grahas Venus and Mars. I would like

you to

> > > > look

> > > > > at

> > > > > > > all

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > six

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > charts

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whose Vargas together are referred as

> > > > > Shadvargas and

> > > > > > > > > try to

> > > > > > > > > > > find

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > out

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whether they do indeed contain the 6

> > Vargas

> > > > of

> > > > > Venus

> > > > > > > > > and 6

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars. I am sure that you will find

them to

> > > > > contain

> > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > 5

> > > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > each of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the grahas. Once you confirm this by

> > looking

> > > > at

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > 6

> > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > self,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tell me how one can look at

Shadvargas of

> > > > Venus

> > > > > or

> > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested to be the interpretation of

the

> > > > sutra

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > you are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > referring to.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You may also be interested to know

that

> > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > talks

> > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > AK

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > falling in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Varga of Chandra, Mars or Venus

also

> > > > having

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > roving

> > > > > > > > > > > eye

> > > > > > > > > > > > > on

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wives. So the combination of Venus and

> > Mars

> > > > > being

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > giving

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the roving eye for other's wives,

that you

> > > > are

> > > > > > > > > advancing as

> > > > > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > standalone

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > principle, may not, necessarily, be

the

> > way

> > > > the

> > > > > sage

> > > > > > > > > looked

> > > > > > > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > their

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > interpretation.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Those were written by me.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am very dissappointed to see

> > > > that ,inspite

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > repeating

> > > > > > > > > > > > > numerus

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > times,you are unable to get what i

am

> > > > saying.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not talking about rashis

lorded by

> > > > > shukra or

> > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > here.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > am

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > talking about the shadvargas vargas

of

> > > > mars

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > shukra.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pls tell me what is the meaning of

> > > > shadvargas

> > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > simply

> > > > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lagna.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the rashi in which lagna is

> > > > placed.The

> > > > > > > > > navamshaka of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna,Trimshamshaka of Lagna

etc.Can we

> > > > see

> > > > > any

> > > > > > > > > lordship

> > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > say.Lagna does not own any rashi.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly when we say vargas of

Venus -

> > It

> > > > > means

> > > > > > > Rashi

> > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > Venus,Hora,navamshaka,drekkana,trimshamshaka

> > > > > etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shadvarga is never the rashi owned

by a

> > > > > > > planet.Then

> > > > > > > > > Lagna

> > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > never

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have shadvarga.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say,Chandra

in

> > Guru

> > > > > > > Varga - We

> > > > > > > > > > > are not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > seeing

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the shadvarga of Guru,but that of

> > > > chandra.Is

> > > > > > > chandra

> > > > > > > > > > > placed in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guru

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rashi?Is Chandra navamshaka in Guru

> > > > Rashi.Is

> > > > > > > Chandra

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamshaka in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guru Rashi etc is what we check.If

so

> > > > chandras

> > > > > > > vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > fall in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > guru

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashis or we say chandra is in

> > guruvargas.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the same reason schoplars of

> > > > yesteryears

> > > > > > > always

> > > > > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for our natal Lagna and Planets.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand you are taking

them as

> > > > > owned by

> > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > planet.Every

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > shadvarga that derive is like

that.You

> > may

> > > > > check

> > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > shri

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Narasimha,how he is deriving it for

his

> > > > > software.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the same reason Bhrigu and

Angara

> > can

> > > > have

> > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > together

> > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rashi which is 2nd from

Karakamsha.Sage

> > > > > clearly

> > > > > > > talks

> > > > > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vargas from both.Moreover the next

> > shloka

> > > > is

> > > > > > > talking

> > > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus together or aspecting the 2nd

from

> > > > > > > karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we go by your

> > > > > explanation,we

> > > > > > > > > have to

> > > > > > > > > > > opt

> > > > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just one among shukra or Mars which

is

> > not

> > > > > > > > > proper.Their

> > > > > > > > > > > Joint

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > influence creates sexual drive.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I request you to kindly read this

with

> > > > care.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rspect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

40>,

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The below remarks are not from my

mail

> > > > at

> > > > > all.

> > > > > > > I do

> > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > know

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think I would write that. I am

sure

> > you

> > > > know

> > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > my

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > style

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of writing at all.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " >From my experience -Mars + Venus

> > > > creates

> > > > > > > certin

> > > > > > > > > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced

this.Why

> > are

> > > > you

> > > > > > > going

> > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > owned by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just one of them and that too

without

> > a

> > > > > > > planetary

> > > > > > > > > link

> > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > worrying me.Shri Rath has

translated

> > so,i

> > > > > > > agree.But

> > > > > > > > > i

> > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will

> > > > definitely

> > > > > > > correct

> > > > > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > benfit

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of jyotish community. "

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As to why I said they could not be

> > > > having

> > > > > their

> > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > together in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi or Bhava does not need any

deeper

> > > > > > > explanation.

> > > > > > > > > If

> > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > looking

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at the 2nd from Karakamsha in the

rasi

> > > > > chart,

> > > > > > > as you

> > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > right, you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > could not have both Mesha and

> > Vrishabha

> > > > or

> > > > > Tula

> > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Vrishchika

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd from the Karakamsha, is that

not

> > so?

> > > > > > > Similarly

> > > > > > > > > if in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the 2nd from Karakamsha is to be

seen,

> > > > the

> > > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > > > could be

> > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > navamshas.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I though you meant so.Because in

> > > > > subsequent

> > > > > > > lines

> > > > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > see

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and Karakamsha being used for

the

> > same

> > > > > > > > > purpose.But if

> > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there are other places where

swamsha

> > > > is

> > > > > used

> > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagnamsha ,then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i can trust you if you can

point me

> > to

> > > > > that.

> > > > > > > This

> > > > > > > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problem and in no way it will

affect

> > > > us.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars can ofcourse have

> > their

> > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > in a

> > > > > > > > > > > single

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashi or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bhava.Venus can have navamsha

> > > > there,Mars

> > > > > can

> > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there,Venus can have Trimshamsha

> > > > > there,Mars

> > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there,they both can have

drekkana

> > > > there

> > > > > etc

> > > > > > > etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus sage is talking about

Bhrigu

> > and

> > > > > Angara

> > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > (as

> > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > identified gramattically) having

> > varga

> > > > > there

> > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > it is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > very

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > much

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you note the next line -Sage

is

> > > > talking

> > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > joining or aspecting the 2nd

from

> > > > > Karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From my experience -Mars +

Venus

> > > > creates

> > > > > > > certin

> > > > > > > > > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced

this.Why

> > > > are

> > > > > you

> > > > > > > going

> > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > owned by just one of them and

that

> > too

> > > > > > > without a

> > > > > > > > > > > planetary

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > link is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really worrying me.Shri Rath has

> > > > > translated

> > > > > > > so,i

> > > > > > > > > > > > > agree.But i

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath

will

> > > > > definitely

> > > > > > > > > correct

> > > > > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > benfit of jyotish community.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am surprised as to why you say

> > > > so.That

> > > > > they

> > > > > > > > > cannot

> > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > together.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pardeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In

 

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > > > 40>,

> > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have never said that I do

not

> > > > think

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different where the context

> > demands

> > > > so.

> > > > > At

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > > > time I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammar can be put to rest to

in

> > the

> > > > > name of

> > > > > > > > > > > context,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sound

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course if you want

contextual

> > > > > translation

> > > > > > > > > only,

> > > > > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > certainly say that

the " Meshadi

> > > > raashige

> > > > > > > > > swaamshe "

> > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > always be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > translated as " Falling in

Mesha

> > > > > navamsha in

> > > > > > > > > Mesha

> > > > > > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc. " .

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way " Tatra

Bhrigwonkaraka

> > > > > Varge " ,

> > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mention, does

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean varga of both Venus and

mars,

> > > > but

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus OR

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > due to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the grammar only. varga of two

> > > > planets

> > > > > can

> > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > fall

> > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bhava/amsha/rasi whether in

rasi

> > or

> > > > > > > Navamsha or

> > > > > > > > > any

> > > > > > > > > > > > > other

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Grammatically,what you are

> > saying

> > > > is

> > > > > also

> > > > > > > > > true.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But Jyotish defintions play

a

> > > > > preceding

> > > > > > > role

> > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > choosing

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammatical meaning.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example one meaning of

> > > > > labhe ,Swamshe

> > > > > > > etc

> > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 11th

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But if we go by that we will

> > > > > definitely

> > > > > > > > > translate

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamshe in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > meshadi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashige as ''in

> > Swamsha'',thereby

> > > > > > > translating

> > > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > full

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart.This as you too

agree,then

> > > > > cannot

> > > > > > > pass

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > test,of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > subsequent shlokas.I

understand

> > > > gladly

> > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > too

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > agree that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha and karakamsha are

the

> > > > same.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So the context decides

> > > > plural/singular

> > > > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > necessarily

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the ''E''

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as you have rightly

mentioned.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But in essence what i want

to

> > say

> > > > > is ''E''

> > > > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > always

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean ''in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the'' as you have

> > > > > interpreted.Labheshe is

> > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example.Karake

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus it can very well mean

> > Varga of

> > > > > > > Shukra and

> > > > > > > > > > > Mars-

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > six vargas or one varga.(Not

> > > > lordship)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra -(There) In the second

> > from

> > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga or Vargas of Venus and

> > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now why should we need two

> > > > > qualifiesrs for

> > > > > > > > > > > destination

> > > > > > > > > > > > > (1)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from karakamsha 2)in the

vargas

> > > > of?)-

> > > > > if

> > > > > > > we had

> > > > > > > > > > > another

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your interpretation is

> > right.That

> > > > > planet

> > > > > > > will

> > > > > > > > > > > answer

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > question -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who is in the vargas of ?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly - Swamshad dhane

> > Shukrar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Swamshad dhane is already

> > pointing

> > > > to

> > > > > > > > > destination-

> > > > > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > need

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > another ''in the'' vargas

of.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say

in

> > the

> > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > from

> > > > > > > > > > > > > karakamsha if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mars and venus are

present,it

> > fits

> > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammatically.Moreover

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i had

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentioned rashi lordship

without

> > > > > planetary

> > > > > > > > > link

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (placement/amsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is too general.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In

> > > >

> > <%40> <%

> > 40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > 40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > > > > 40>,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I may be wrong but

the " E " by

> > > > itself

> > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > point

> > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > word Shadvarga indicating

6

> > > > Vargas

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > group

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (though it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more than one unit) and

> > > > so " Varge " ,

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > singular is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " E " means " in " . I would be

> > happy

> > > > if

> > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > example

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of " Varge "

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plural

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can be given.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not at all think that

> > > > Vargaka

> > > > > or

> > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > singular and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargake

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge is plural, at all.

Both

> > the

> > > > > > > manner of

> > > > > > > > > > > using

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > indicates singular. it is

no

> > use

> > > > > > > projecting

> > > > > > > > > > > what is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clearly

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saptami

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vibhakti and singular as

> > being a

> > > > > plural

> > > > > > > > > word. If

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dvivachana it may

> > > > become " VargyoH "

> > > > > > > > > or " VargeSu "

> > > > > > > > > > > (for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bahuvachan)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge. Perhaps some

Sanskrit

> > > > > scholar on

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > list

> > > > > > > > > > > > > would

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > comment

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on this.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, much as I would like

it to

> > > > > resolve,

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > issue

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > remains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unresolved.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will give you a

relevant

> > > > > example to

> > > > > > > > > explain

> > > > > > > > > > > how

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VarGE

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > context of plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna Shad-VargaKE - Is

> > > > pointing

> > > > > to

> > > > > > > all

> > > > > > > > > > > vargas -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plural.You

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > may

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > note

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that the grammatical

ending

> > is

> > > > > > > with ''E''

> > > > > > > > > > > showing

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plurals

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expressed with such an

> > ending.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now from

Vrishamsha''Ka''

> > and

> > > > > Tulamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > example we

> > > > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > conclude

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VargaKA and VarGA can be

> > used

> > > > for

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > > > purpose in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ekavachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > singular form and

VargaKE

> > and

> > > > > VarGE

> > > > > > > can be

> > > > > > > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bahuvachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plural form.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope this may help us

in

> > > > > resolving

> > > > > > > our

> > > > > > > > > > > issue.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------

----

> > ---

> > > > ---

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this

> > incoming

> > > > > > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Checked by AVG Free

Edition.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus

> > > > Database:

> > > > > > > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this

> > > > message

> > > > > have

> > > > > > > been

> > > > > > > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------

----

> > ---

> > > > ---

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this

incoming

> > > > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus

> > Database:

> > > > > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this

message

> > > > have

> > > > > been

> > > > > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------

----

> > ---

> > > > ---

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

> > > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus

Database:

> > > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message

> > have

> > > > been

> > > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---

----

> > ---

> > > > ---

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message

have

> > been

> > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------

----

> > ---

> > > > ---

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have

been

> > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > -----------

----

> > ---

> > > > ---

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > 269.10.2/890 -

> > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > ---------------

----

> > ---

> > > > ---

> > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

269.10.2/890 -

> > > > Release

> > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

removed]

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > -------------------

----

> > --

> > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/890 -

> > Release

> > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandrashekhar ji

 

I feel the drishtis are graded and not partial drishtis.Poorna

drishti is mentioned.

 

Kindly help me with the shloka in BPHS or Jaimini sutra pointing to

grading o Rashi drishti.

 

Shri PVR Rao has the same view.

 

Now as it is graha drishti,and as you do not accept aspects as a rule

in general in varga chakras -how can this yoga happen is the

crux.This it will solve all our issues,unless you want to change your

opinion on graha drishtis within Varga chakra.Thus as far as i am

concerned one answer from you will atleast enable both of us to reach

a conclusion.If you change your opinion then it is your view and i

respect that.

 

Now Trimishamsha shloka is ending(not chakra) bforeour shloka and

sage is talking about aspect between planets,Lagna belonging to

Shukra and Lagnas amsha falling within Ghata rashi and shukra and

Saturn undergoing exchange in amsha.Do we need another example to see

how differen aspects are studied together.Where is Trimshamsha chakra

here.If Saravali is wrong too,then i cannot say anything.

 

Respect

Pradeep

-- In , Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> The partial drishtis are graded in different strengths in the

shloka

> that you have quoted. I fail to see how the interpretation of this

> shloka puts an end to aspects in Vargas ,and how does it prove that

> rashi drishti is not to be considered as claimed by you.

>

> Why should the shubha grahas have only graded drishti and not Rashi

> drishti? There is nothing to support that premise in the shlokas

from

> Brihat Jataka talking about aspects in Trimshamshas.

>

> Chandrashekhar.

> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >

> > I thought you were aware of where that shloka is from.

> > It is present in Rajayogadhyaya and came into picture during my

> > debate with shri PVR Rao.

> > This shloka was debated as ,interpretation of this shloka will

bring

> > to end all doubts regarding vargamshas.

> > It is relevant to our discussion as you have mentioned shubha

grahas

> > aspecting Lagnamsha,and lagnamsha i one among the shadvargas of

Lagna.

> >

> > Now you may kindly say,how this has to be interpreted ,as rashi

> > drishti is ruled out in this case.

> >

> > I have no problems with Rashi drishti.But as you see in this case

> > grades are being mentioned.

> >

> > Regsrding the shlokas(navamsha/trimshamsha),i did not have time

> > yesterday in the night.Thus i have posted you the shlokas,withfull

> > explanation and refernces.Kindly see them.

> >

> > Respect

> > Pradeep

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > Do you mean to say that Parashara says that in connection with

> > > Meshaamshe etc.? I doubt that shloka exists in the karakamsha

> > adhyaaya,

> > > but of course, I could be wrong.

> > >

> > > I asked you whether you accept the rashi drishtis that are

> > mentioned by

> > > Parashara and Jaimini or not? If Dashaaadhyaayi interprets the

> > shlokas

> > > on navamsha and Trimshamshas from Brihat Jataka, why not give

what

> > it says?

> > >

> > > You have given your interpretation of how amshakas should be

> > > interpreted, but failed to address the queries. May I know why?

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > >

> > > > Purna drishte Purna Yogam Ardha Drishte ardhameva cha

> > > > Pada drishte Padayogamiti gyeyam kramat phalam.

> > > >

> > > > Is mentioned and hence the aspects are not about Rashi

drishti.

> > > >

> > > > Now as i have mentioned in the past,though the name is

> > > > dashadhyayi,the author covers shlokas,from most of the

chapters as

> > > > and when he finds some interrelationship or link.This i

consider

> > as a

> > > > real blessing.Now how amshakas are interpreted,has been

> > > > demonstrated ,for numerous contexts,and thus forming a

guideline

> > for

> > > > other shloka interpretations.

> > > >

> > > > I will see the shlokas,and will write back.

> > > >

> > > > Respect

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > Transits are to be seen no doubt from the rasis synonymous

to

> > the

> > > > > navamsha rasis, but when it is sphuta it is of the

navamshesha

> > and

> > > > not

> > > > > the rasis. There is a difference between the two.

> > > > >

> > > > > I have already said I do not consider aspects in D-charts,

> > unless

> > > > > specifically mentioned in some yogas, and also that barring

> > > > navamsha

> > > > > charts, in other varga charts I look at rashi aspects. That

does

> > > > not

> > > > > mean I should close my eyes to what is written in other

> > respected

> > > > texts.

> > > > > That only means I look at charts from a different angle.

> > > > >

> > > > > There is nothing in the lagna shadvargake shloka to indicate

> > graded

> > > > > aspects and so it does not rule out rashi drishti at all.

Ans

> > since

> > > > you

> > > > > have quoted both Parashara and Jaimini you should know that

> > rashi

> > > > > drishtis are valid in Parashara too and exclusively so in

> > Jaimini.

> > > > >

> > > > > Your translation and mine of the shlokas differ and that is

why

> > > > there is

> > > > > no agreement. If you expect Dashaadhyaayi to give divisional

> > charts

> > > > and

> > > > > their interpretations, that is not possible as Varaha

Mihira on

> > > > whose

> > > > > work it is only a commentary does not speak of it and it is

> > > > commentary

> > > > > on only 10 of the 18 adhayaayas of Brihat jataka. If you

read

> > > > Brihat

> > > > > jataka carefully, you will see reference o aspects in

> > Trimshamsha

> > > > there.

> > > > > Since you have many times claimed superiority of

Dashaadhyaayi

> > over

> > > > many

> > > > > of the more ancient and respected classics, I find it

strange

> > as to

> > > > why

> > > > > you do not want to accept what is said in the original text

on

> > > > which

> > > > > Dashaadhyaayi is only a commentary and that too on 10

adhyaayas

> > as

> > > > the

> > > > > name suggests (that does not, of course, make it any less

> > > > respectable).

> > > > > There are many references to planets being placed in a

navamsha,

> > > > which

> > > > > is not identical with the rasi whose name the navamsha

enjoys,

> > and

> > > > the

> > > > > results from them in the 21st adhyaaya. How do you map back

> > such a

> > > > > navamsha to the rasi and what should be the logic? You also

see

> > > > > reference to Guru occupying own Trimshamsha, irrespective of

> > rasi

> > > > in the

> > > > > same adhayaaya. There are too many references like this to

> > question

> > > > the

> > > > > theory that the amshas need always be mapped back to

identical

> > rasi

> > > > in

> > > > > rasi chart.

> > > > >

> > > > > Could you tell why this reluctance to accept Varaha Mihira?

> > > > >

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Meshamshe, Vrishamshe Transit results can be seen from

Mesha

> > and

> > > > > > Vrishabha rashis.Thus you are aware of what i am

> > saying.Moreover

> > > > we

> > > > > > have seen paparkshe.we have seen meshadi rashige

swamshe.we

> > have

> > > > seen

> > > > > > that bhrigwonkaraka varge ,as per your understanding

cannot

> > > > satisfy

> > > > > > both mars and venus.The very next shloka is talking about

> > mars and

> > > > > > venus yuti or aspecting.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Now we can forget all these as you are not williing to

accept

> > > > > > rashi,riksha etc as valid reasoning.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > We have seen Lagna shadvargake shloka with aspectual

> > > > grades,proving

> > > > > > that they ae not rashi drishtis.Couple of days back and

many

> > > > times in

> > > > > > the past,i have heard from you that you don't support

aspects

> > in

> > > > > > Vargas.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If you still have the sam views,then to understand

shadvargake

> > > > > > shloka,we have to see planets aspecting lagna in ''six

> > charts''.As

> > > > > > lagna can fall in any rashi,you have to accept aspects

fully

> > in

> > > > all

> > > > > > Varga charts.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > This is relevant to our discussion as lagnamsha is also

part

> > of

> > > > > > shadvargas of lagna.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As you are aware ,the BPHS translator too has expressed

his

> > > > concern.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > How could I think shadvarga of lagna is shadvarga of

rashi?

> > > > Lagna

> > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > point on the eastern horizon at the time of birth of a

> > jataka.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > There is no dispute about what is lagnamsha and what is

> > > > karakamsha

> > > > > > at

> > > > > > > all. At the same time when reference is to a graha

falling

> > in

> > > > > > Lagnamsha

> > > > > > > it refers to the navamsha rasi (or sector ruled by one

of

> > the

> > > > rasis

> > > > > > of a

> > > > > > > planet, barring Sun and Chandra if you like it that

way) in

> > > > which

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > lagnamsha falls. Now that being so where is the shubha

graha

> > > > > > supposed to

> > > > > > > fall in the shloka I quoted? Same with the Shubh graha

in

> > > > > > Karakamsha and

> > > > > > > needing drishti of shubha graha on it. It is easy to say

> > that

> > > > > > these

> > > > > > > need to be seen in rasi, but for lack of the reference

to

> > rasi,

> > > > > > there,

> > > > > > > there is no reason to assume that it does not refer to

> > navamsha

> > > > > > rasi.

> > > > > > > The reference to grahas

in " Meshaamshe " , " Vrishabhaamshe "

> > etc

> > > > are

> > > > > > quite

> > > > > > > clear, in BPHS.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Of course Yes,you are correct.Varga is found for this

> > bindu

> > > > and in

> > > > > > > > the case of planets their degree decides.The rest you

have

> > > > stated

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > also as per definition.My point was made under the

> > impression

> > > > that

> > > > > > > > you have a view that,shadvarga of Lagna is shadvarga

of a

> > > > > > rashi.If so

> > > > > > > > it is not.Shad varga is found for Lagna bindu.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > The full Rashi/Kshethra in which Lagna bindu falls

> > becomes its

> > > > > > first

> > > > > > > > Varga.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > The Translation is entiterely correct and no one can

> > > > > > contradict.This

> > > > > > > > is similar to one planet aspecting shadvargas of

lagna.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Lagnamsha is already covered in the shadvargas of

> > > > > > lagna.Karakamsha is

> > > > > > > > similar too.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Now let us see it on a chart.Karkamasha is in

> > Dhanu.Jupiter is

> > > > > > placed

> > > > > > > > in Mithuna Rashi.Shubha graha is aspecting Karakamsha

> > Lagna

> > > > > > > > (Rashi).Similarly Lagnamsha.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > You are already aware of the rules for aspects.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>,

Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I see your point of view. anyway even within

shadvargas

> > we

> > > > look

> > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > degree of a planet falling within a certain span of

> > degrees

> > > > and

> > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > particular bindu.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I agree that rashi is a Varga and my question is if

one

> > can

> > > > > > look at

> > > > > > > > > aspects in one Varga why not in other Vargas? I am

sure

> > you

> > > > know

> > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > personally I use navamsha to find only the strength

of

> > > > grahas,

> > > > > > but

> > > > > > > > there

> > > > > > > > > is no reason to rule out aspects in Navamshas or

other

> > > > charts

> > > > > > > > totally.

> > > > > > > > > One of the raj yogas mentioned by Parashara talks of

> > aspect

> > > > of

> > > > > > > > shubha

> > > > > > > > > grahas on the karakamsha and Lagnamsha which should

> > also be

> > > > > > > > tenanted by

> > > > > > > > > Shubha grahas, leaving no doubt as to where the

aspects

> > are

> > > > to

> > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > seen.

> > > > > > > > > And for the record the translation to that effect

is by

> > an

> > > > > > eminent

> > > > > > > > > astrologer who was Professor of astrology in Banaras

> > Hindu

> > > > > > > > University.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Lagna as a bindu was mentioned for driving home

the

> > > > shadvarga

> > > > > > > > > > calculations,if any members were having doubts.For

> > > > shadvarga

> > > > > > > > > > calculation of planets too we need the bindu or

> > degree of

> > > > a

> > > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > > > within a rashi, as you are aware.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > We have to look at Rashis.This is so because Rashi

> > (one 30

> > > > > > degree

> > > > > > > > > > sector ) is the first varga.As this Varga is

> > synonymous

> > > > with

> > > > > > Bhava

> > > > > > > > > > houses are analysed w.r to Rashis.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > If lagna is a bindu a you propose, and nothing

more,

> > > > then

> > > > > > how

> > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > > indicate an entire rasi? Now if this is

correct, and

> > > > > > technically

> > > > > > > > > > it is,

> > > > > > > > > > > then by your reckoning there is no need to look

at

> > rasis

> > > > > > too. Is

> > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > what you mean to say?

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > If shadvargas are not related to the portion

> > falling in

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > lagna

> > > > > > > > > > rasis,

> > > > > > > > > > > which holds the degree of lagna Madhya, then it

> > appears

> > > > we

> > > > > > must

> > > > > > > > ask

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > sages to redefine Vargas. I doubt they need our

> > advise.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > There was a purpose.I just wanted to explain

it

> > to the

> > > > > > > > members if

> > > > > > > > > > > > some of them are not sure on what shadvarga of

> > lagna

> > > > is

> > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > how it

> > > > > > > > > > > > is calculated.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > As you have said Vargas are divisions of a

> > rashi.But

> > > > > > > > shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna is not the Vargas falling in Lagna.Here

> > lagna is

> > > > > > not a

> > > > > > > > > > > > rashi,but a bindu.Vargas are found from a

> > degree.The

> > > > > > degree

> > > > > > > > of a

> > > > > > > > > > > > planet or degree of lagna.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > As you may know we do notneed six charts to

> > dtermine

> > > > > > > > shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > > > lagna.All we need is the degree of lagna and

the

> > rashi

> > > > > > rising.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Let us take an example.Lagna is at 11 degrees

in

> > > > dhanu.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Let us find the shadvargas of Lagna with th

help

> > of

> > > > rising

> > > > > > > > rashi

> > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > degree.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > 1st Varga - The Rashi in which Lagna bindu is

> > > > falling -

> > > > > > Dhanu

> > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd Varga - The Hora in which Lagna bindu is

> > falling -

> > > > As

> > > > > > 11

> > > > > > > > > > degrees

> > > > > > > > > > > > falls in the 1st half of dhanu - Surya Hora

> > > > > > > > > > > > 3rd Varga - The drekkana in which Lagna bindu

is

> > > > falling -

> > > > > > As

> > > > > > > > 11

> > > > > > > > > > > > degrees falls in the 2nd 1/3rd of dhanu -

> > Drekkana is

> > > > > > Mesha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > 4th Varga - As 11 degrees falls in the 3rd

> > > > > > saptamsha ,Lagna

> > > > > > > > > > saptamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > is Kumbha.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Similraly - Lagna navamsha is Karka,Lagna

> > Trimshamsha

> > > > is

> > > > > > > > dhanu.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Thus the purpose of whole exercise was to say

that

> > > > when

> > > > > > we say

> > > > > > > > > > > > shadvargas of Lagna or Mars,it does not mean

the

> > > > rashis

> > > > > > owned

> > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna or Mars.But the Rashis on towhich they

are

> > > > > > placed,having

> > > > > > > > > > > > hora,drekkana etc etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas of Mars in the 2nd Rashi from

karakamsha

> > too

> > > > is no

> > > > > > > > > > differet.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > There are many meanings,that is why Rashi is

> > called as

> > > > > > > > > > > > Kshethra /Riksha /havana etc.But i don't think

> > sage

> > > > will

> > > > > > use

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > saword to represent something belonging to

same

> > class.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > For example sage will not use ''sva'' to mean

2nd

> > as

> > > > well

> > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > 3rd.Then

> > > > > > > > > > > > we cannot interpret.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly Rashi and navamsha will not be

> > represented

> > > > > > using the

> > > > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > > word.Rashi/Kshethra/Riksha/Bhvana/Lagna etc

are

> > > > synonyms

> > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > ifthey

> > > > > > > > > > > > are used for navamsha then what is the whole

> > purpose

> > > > > > behind

> > > > > > > > > > defintion.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand sva was used for iems from

> > different

> > > > > > > > classes.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > This wasin mind while making such a

statement.I

> > will

> > > > try

> > > > > > my

> > > > > > > > best

> > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > polish my style of writing.I accept my

> > limitations in

> > > > > > writing.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I have not understood your question or the

> > intent

> > > > behind

> > > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas are divisions, within a rasi, ruled

by

> > > > different

> > > > > > > > grahas.

> > > > > > > > > > So

> > > > > > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > one wants t look at Vargas falling in lagna

the

> > shad

> > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > will

> > > > > > > > > > > > mean

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the rasi equivalent occurring at lagna

position

> > in

> > > > the 6

> > > > > > > > > > divisional

> > > > > > > > > > > > > charts of Rashi, Hora, Dreshkana, Navamsha,

> > > > > > Dwaadashamsha

> > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamsha. Or at least this is what I have

> > learnt.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sages did not use words in vain or context.

I

> > > > agree. But

> > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > mean they used the words to mean only one

thing

> > > > always.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I never said that the meaning can be

changed to

> > > > suit our

> > > > > > > > > > > > convenience and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I would request you not to attribute such

> > > > sentiments to

> > > > > > me.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > However I do say that word are used in

different

> > > > > > contexts to

> > > > > > > > > > mean

> > > > > > > > > > > > > different things, especially in Sanskrit

texts

> > of

> > > > > > Jyotish. I

> > > > > > > > > > have,

> > > > > > > > > > > > just

> > > > > > > > > > > > > a few minutes back use of " Sva " with

different

> > > > meaning

> > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > > > > places by Varaha Mihira to you. I hope you

do

> > not

> > > > also

> > > > > > > > attribute

> > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > words that you attributed to me to the

venerated

> > > > Varaha

> > > > > > > > Mihira.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar,.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pls tell me what you mean by shadvargas of

> > > > lagna.How

> > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > find

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > them.Do you go by ownership or placement

> > > > > > > > > > > > (Rashi/navamsha/dwadshamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc).

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are shlokas in Varahamihiras text

which

> > > > > > > > says ,Okarkshe

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Purushamshakae.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which means in Ojarashi and Oja amsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > As per me sages will not use any words

out of

> > > > > > context.If

> > > > > > > > he

> > > > > > > > > > wants

> > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > say amsha he will mention it.He will not

use

> > > > Rashi to

> > > > > > > > mean as

> > > > > > > > > > > > amsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ojarkshe is Oja Rashi.Similarly Paparkshe

is

> > Papa

> > > > > > Rashi.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you want to say as per our conveninece

we

> > can

> > > > > > change

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of riksha/rashi/bhavana/bhavas as navamsha

> > then i

> > > > > > cannot

> > > > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > anything.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can only respect your views.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will tell you why that happens. You

begin

> > with

> > > > > > quoting

> > > > > > > > > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then give a sutra from Jaimini as being

> > said by

> > > > > > > > Parashara.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Interpretation of sutras is not the

easiest

> > of

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > things,

> > > > > > > > > > more

> > > > > > > > > > > > so

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jaimini's Upadesha sutras. That the

sutras

> > use

> > > > > > > > KaTaPaYaadi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > encryption

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > makes them even more difficult to

> > interpret. I

> > > > am

> > > > > > sure

> > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > noticed

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this when Sreenadh interpreted the

> > KaTaPaYaadi

> > > > > > Varga in

> > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > wrong

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > fashion.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then there is your insistence to let

> > Sanskrit

> > > > > > grammar

> > > > > > > > give

> > > > > > > > > > a go

> > > > > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that can make interpretation of a

shloka or

> > > > sutra

> > > > > > fit

> > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposition.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any of the Shodasha Vargas of a rasi

can be

> > > > > > referred to

> > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > Varga,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > but as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far as I know in astrology, when one

talks

> > of

> > > > Varga,

> > > > > > > > without

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > qualifying

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it, or Amshas that generally refers to

> > navamsha

> > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dwadashaamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another reason that we can not agree, or

> > seem to

> > > > > > agree,

> > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > you are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reluctant to call a navamsha by the

> > nomenclature

> > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > rasi.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > This

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > makes it difficult to convey what I

mean to

> > say

> > > > in

> > > > > > > > English

> > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the language of the net and which both

of us

> > > > know.

> > > > > > Now

> > > > > > > > > > since you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > do not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > want to use the word Mesha navamsha as

> > Mesha is

> > > > a

> > > > > > rashi

> > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > logic it can not be a navamsha, it

becomes

> > > > > > difficult to

> > > > > > > > > > convey

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > what I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understand by the texts.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will like to draw your attention to

the

> > > > literal

> > > > > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi. It means a heap and nothing more.

In

> > > > astrology

> > > > > > > > since

> > > > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > encompasses many stars that make up a

> > nakshatra

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > 1/12th

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > division of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the zodiac is called a Rasi. Or at least

> > this

> > > > is my

> > > > > > > > > > > > understanding

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason of using the word rasi for the

1/12th

> > > > > > division

> > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > zodiac.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not agree that by Chandra in Guru

> > Varga it

> > > > is

> > > > > > meant

> > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandra is being seen. To me we are

talking

> > > > about is

> > > > > > > > whether

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandra is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > falling in the Varga of Guru in which

ever

> > rasi

> > > > he

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > occupying.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > So in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Navamsha we see whether Chandra is

occupying

> > > > Pisces

> > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > Sagittarius

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > navamsha. I also do not agree that

there are

> > > > Vargas

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > Chandra

> > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of any

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > planet for that matter. The 16 Vargas

that

> > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > talks

> > > > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that of a Rasi, beginning from the Rashi

> > itself.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the Vargas are not owned by different

> > > > planets,

> > > > > > pray

> > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the sage

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tell us to see occupation of a friend,

own

> > etc.

> > > > > > Varga to

> > > > > > > > > > assess

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > strength of a planet in the Varga

concerned?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have interacted with many astrologers

of

> > > > > > yesteryears

> > > > > > > > (with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > respect to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > my age group) and have never found them

> > > > claiming the

> > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only lagna and planets.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you insist that sage Parashara gave

the

> > SU.

> > > > 52.-

> > > > > > > > " Tatra

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > bhrigwongaraka

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > varge paradarikaha " , perhaps you are

> > referring

> > > > to

> > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > edition

> > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > BPHS

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that I do not have. However I do have

that

> > in

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > umpteen

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > texts on Jaimini that I do have in my

> > library.

> > > > And

> > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > way,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > scholars have interpreted that to mean

9th

> > from

> > > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the 2nd.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not agree that a graha can

> > simultaneously

> > > > > > occupy

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars, simultaneously, as is

being

> > > > > > suggested

> > > > > > > > > > whether in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in any of the Vargas. It could only

occupy

> > one

> > > > or

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > other.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have seen you arguing in favor of

looking

> > at

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > Shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grahas Venus and Mars. I would like you

to

> > look

> > > > at

> > > > > > all

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > six

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > charts

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whose Vargas together are referred as

> > > > Shadvargas and

> > > > > > > > try to

> > > > > > > > > > find

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > out

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whether they do indeed contain the 6

Vargas

> > of

> > > > Venus

> > > > > > > > and 6

> > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars. I am sure that you will find them

to

> > > > contain

> > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > 5

> > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > each of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the grahas. Once you confirm this by

> > looking at

> > > > the

> > > > > > 6

> > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > self,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tell me how one can look at Shadvargas

of

> > Venus

> > > > or

> > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested to be the interpretation of

the

> > sutra

> > > > that

> > > > > > > > you are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > referring to.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You may also be interested to know that

> > > > Parashara

> > > > > > talks

> > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > AK

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > falling in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Varga of Chandra, Mars or Venus also

> > having

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > roving

> > > > > > > > > > eye

> > > > > > > > > > > > on

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > others

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wives. So the combination of Venus and

Mars

> > > > being

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > giving

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the roving eye for other's wives, that

you

> > are

> > > > > > > > advancing as

> > > > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > standalone

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > principle, may not, necessarily, be the

way

> > the

> > > > sage

> > > > > > > > looked

> > > > > > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > their

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > interpretation.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Those were written by me.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am very dissappointed to see

> > that ,inspite

> > > > of

> > > > > > > > repeating

> > > > > > > > > > > > numerus

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > times,you are unable to get what i am

> > saying.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not talking about rashis lorded

by

> > > > shukra or

> > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > here.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > am

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > talking about the shadvargas vargas of

> > mars

> > > > and

> > > > > > > > shukra.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pls tell me what is the meaning of

> > shadvargas

> > > > or

> > > > > > > > simply

> > > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lagna.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the rashi in which lagna is

> > placed.The

> > > > > > > > navamshaka of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna,Trimshamshaka of Lagna etc.Can

we

> > see

> > > > any

> > > > > > > > lordship

> > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > say.Lagna does not own any rashi.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly when we say vargas of

Venus -It

> > > > means

> > > > > > Rashi

> > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > Venus,Hora,navamshaka,drekkana,trimshamshaka

> > > > etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shadvarga is never the rashi owned by

a

> > > > > > planet.Then

> > > > > > > > Lagna

> > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > never

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have shadvarga.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say,Chandra in

> > Guru

> > > > > > Varga - We

> > > > > > > > > > are not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > seeing

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the shadvarga of Guru,but that of

> > chandra.Is

> > > > > > chandra

> > > > > > > > > > placed in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guru

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rashi?Is Chandra navamshaka in Guru

> > Rashi.Is

> > > > > > Chandra

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamshaka in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guru Rashi etc is what we check.If so

> > chandras

> > > > > > vargas

> > > > > > > > > > fall in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > guru

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashis or we say chandra is in

guruvargas.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the same reason schoplars of

> > yesteryears

> > > > > > always

> > > > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for our natal Lagna and Planets.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand you are taking them

as

> > > > owned by

> > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > > planet.Every

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > shadvarga that derive is like

that.You may

> > > > check

> > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > shri

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Narasimha,how he is deriving it for

his

> > > > software.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the same reason Bhrigu and Angara

can

> > have

> > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > together

> > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rashi which is 2nd from

Karakamsha.Sage

> > > > clearly

> > > > > > talks

> > > > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vargas from both.Moreover the next

shloka

> > is

> > > > > > talking

> > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus together or aspecting the 2nd

from

> > > > > > karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we go by your

> > > > explanation,we

> > > > > > > > have to

> > > > > > > > > > opt

> > > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just one among shukra or Mars which

is not

> > > > > > > > proper.Their

> > > > > > > > > > Joint

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > influence creates sexual drive.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I request you to kindly read this with

> > care.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rspect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

40>,

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The below remarks are not from my

mail

> > at

> > > > all.

> > > > > > I do

> > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > know

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think I would write that. I am sure

you

> > know

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > my

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > style

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of writing at all.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " >From my experience -Mars + Venus

> > creates

> > > > > > certin

> > > > > > > > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why

are

> > you

> > > > > > going

> > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > owned by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just one of them and that too

without a

> > > > > > planetary

> > > > > > > > link

> > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > really

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > worrying me.Shri Rath has translated

> > so,i

> > > > > > agree.But

> > > > > > > > i

> > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will

> > definitely

> > > > > > correct

> > > > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > benfit

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of jyotish community. "

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As to why I said they could not be

> > having

> > > > their

> > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > together in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi or Bhava does not need any

deeper

> > > > > > explanation.

> > > > > > > > If

> > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > looking

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at the 2nd from Karakamsha in the

rasi

> > > > chart,

> > > > > > as you

> > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > right, you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > could not have both Mesha and

Vrishabha

> > or

> > > > Tula

> > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > Vrishchika

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd from the Karakamsha, is that

not so?

> > > > > > Similarly

> > > > > > > > if in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the 2nd from Karakamsha is to be

seen,

> > the

> > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > > could be

> > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > navamshas.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I though you meant so.Because in

> > > > subsequent

> > > > > > lines

> > > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > see

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and Karakamsha being used for the

same

> > > > > > > > purpose.But if

> > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there are other places where

swamsha

> > is

> > > > used

> > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagnamsha ,then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i can trust you if you can point

me to

> > > > that.

> > > > > > This

> > > > > > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > be a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problem and in no way it will

affect

> > us.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars can ofcourse have

their

> > > > Vargas

> > > > > > in a

> > > > > > > > > > single

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashi or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bhava.Venus can have navamsha

> > there,Mars

> > > > can

> > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there,Venus can have Trimshamsha

> > > > there,Mars

> > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there,they both can have drekkana

> > there

> > > > etc

> > > > > > etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus sage is talking about Bhrigu

and

> > > > Angara

> > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > (as

> > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > identified gramattically) having

varga

> > > > there

> > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > it is

> > > > > > > > > > > > very

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > much

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you note the next line -Sage is

> > talking

> > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > > Venus

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > joining or aspecting the 2nd from

> > > > Karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From my experience -Mars + Venus

> > creates

> > > > > > certin

> > > > > > > > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced

this.Why

> > are

> > > > you

> > > > > > going

> > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > owned by just one of them and

that too

> > > > > > without a

> > > > > > > > > > planetary

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > link is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really worrying me.Shri Rath has

> > > > translated

> > > > > > so,i

> > > > > > > > > > > > agree.But i

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will

> > > > definitely

> > > > > > > > correct

> > > > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > benfit of jyotish community.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am surprised as to why you say

> > so.That

> > > > they

> > > > > > > > cannot

> > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > together.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pardeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In

 

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > 40>,

> > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have never said that I do not

> > think

> > > > that

> > > > > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different where the context

demands

> > so.

> > > > At

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > > time I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammar can be put to rest to

in the

> > > > name of

> > > > > > > > > > context,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > without

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sound

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course if you want contextual

> > > > translation

> > > > > > > > only,

> > > > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > one can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > certainly say that the " Meshadi

> > raashige

> > > > > > > > swaamshe "

> > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > always be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > translated as " Falling in Mesha

> > > > navamsha in

> > > > > > > > Mesha

> > > > > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc. " .

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way " Tatra

Bhrigwonkaraka

> > > > Varge " ,

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mention, does

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean varga of both Venus and

mars,

> > but

> > > > of

> > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > Venus OR

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > due to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the grammar only. varga of two

> > planets

> > > > can

> > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > fall

> > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bhava/amsha/rasi whether in

rasi or

> > > > > > Navamsha or

> > > > > > > > any

> > > > > > > > > > > > other

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Grammatically,what you are

saying

> > is

> > > > also

> > > > > > > > true.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But Jyotish defintions play a

> > > > preceding

> > > > > > role

> > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > choosing

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammatical meaning.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example one meaning of

> > > > labhe ,Swamshe

> > > > > > etc

> > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 11th

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But if we go by that we will

> > > > definitely

> > > > > > > > translate

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamshe in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > meshadi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashige as ''in

Swamsha'',thereby

> > > > > > translating

> > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > full

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart.This as you too

agree,then

> > > > cannot

> > > > > > pass

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > test,of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > subsequent shlokas.I

understand

> > gladly

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > too

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > agree that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha and karakamsha are the

> > same.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So the context decides

> > plural/singular

> > > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > necessarily

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the ''E''

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as you have rightly mentioned.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But in essence what i want to

say

> > > > is ''E''

> > > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > always

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean ''in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the'' as you have

> > > > interpreted.Labheshe is

> > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > example.Karake

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus it can very well mean

Varga

> > of

> > > > > > Shukra and

> > > > > > > > > > Mars-

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > which can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > six vargas or one varga.(Not

> > lordship)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra -(There) In the second

from

> > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga or Vargas of Venus and

Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now why should we need two

> > > > qualifiesrs for

> > > > > > > > > > destination

> > > > > > > > > > > > (1)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from karakamsha 2)in the

vargas

> > of?)-

> > > > if

> > > > > > we had

> > > > > > > > > > another

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your interpretation is

right.That

> > > > planet

> > > > > > will

> > > > > > > > > > answer

> > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > question -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who is in the vargas of ?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly - Swamshad dhane

Shukrar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Swamshad dhane is already

> > pointing to

> > > > > > > > destination-

> > > > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > need

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > another ''in the'' vargas of.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say in

> > the 2nd

> > > > > > from

> > > > > > > > > > > > karakamsha if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mars and venus are present,it

> > fits in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammatically.Moreover

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i had

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentioned rashi lordship

without

> > > > planetary

> > > > > > > > link

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (placement/amsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is too general.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In

> > <%

40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > 40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > > > 40>,

> > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I may be wrong but the " E "

by

> > itself

> > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > point

> > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > word Shadvarga indicating 6

> > Vargas

> > > > that

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > group

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (though it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more than one unit) and

> > so " Varge " ,

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > singular is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " E " means " in " . I would be

> > happy if

> > > > an

> > > > > > > > example

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of " Varge "

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plural

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can be given.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not at all think that

> > Vargaka

> > > > or

> > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > singular and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargake

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge is plural, at all.

Both

> > the

> > > > > > manner of

> > > > > > > > > > using

> > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > indicates singular. it is

no use

> > > > > > projecting

> > > > > > > > > > what is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > clearly

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saptami

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vibhakti and singular as

being a

> > > > plural

> > > > > > > > word. If

> > > > > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dvivachana it may

> > become " VargyoH "

> > > > > > > > or " VargeSu "

> > > > > > > > > > (for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bahuvachan)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge. Perhaps some Sanskrit

> > > > scholar on

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > list

> > > > > > > > > > > > would

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > like

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > comment

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on this.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, much as I would like it

to

> > > > resolve,

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > issue

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > remains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unresolved.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will give you a relevant

> > > > example to

> > > > > > > > explain

> > > > > > > > > > how

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > VarGE

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > context of plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna Shad-VargaKE - Is

> > pointing

> > > > to

> > > > > > all

> > > > > > > > > > vargas -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plural.You

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > may

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > note

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that the grammatical

ending is

> > > > > > with ''E''

> > > > > > > > > > showing

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > plurals

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expressed with such an

ending.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now from Vrishamsha''Ka''

and

> > > > Tulamsha

> > > > > > > > > > example we

> > > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > conclude

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VargaKA and VarGA can be

used

> > for

> > > > the

> > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > > purpose in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ekavachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > singular form and VargaKE

and

> > > > VarGE

> > > > > > can be

> > > > > > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bahuvachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plural form.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope this may help us in

> > > > resolving

> > > > > > our

> > > > > > > > > > issue.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------

----

> > ----

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this

> > incoming

> > > > > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Checked by AVG Free

Edition.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus

> > Database:

> > > > > > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this

> > message

> > > > have

> > > > > > been

> > > > > > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------

----

> > ----

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this

incoming

> > > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus

Database:

> > > > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this

message

> > have

> > > > been

> > > > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -

----

> > ----

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

> > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message

have

> > been

> > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----

----

> > ----

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have

been

> > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------

----

> > ----

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > -------------

----

> > ----

> > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

269.10.2/890 -

> > > > Release

> > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > -----------------

----

> > ----

> > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/890 -

> > Release

> > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

removed]

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > ---------------------

----

> > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/890 -

Release

> > > > Date:

> > > > > > 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Respected members

 

As there are allegations regarding misquote -those who think i am

misquoting Shri PVR Rao-will be provided with evidence.

 

Regds

Pradeep

 

, " vijayadas_pradeep "

<vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>

> I feel the drishtis are graded and not partial drishtis.Poorna

> drishti is mentioned.

>

> Kindly help me with the shloka in BPHS or Jaimini sutra pointing to

> grading o Rashi drishti.

>

> Shri PVR Rao has the same view.

>

> Now as it is graha drishti,and as you do not accept aspects as a

rule

> in general in varga chakras -how can this yoga happen is the

> crux.This it will solve all our issues,unless you want to change

your

> opinion on graha drishtis within Varga chakra.Thus as far as i am

> concerned one answer from you will atleast enable both of us to

reach

> a conclusion.If you change your opinion then it is your view and i

> respect that.

>

> Now Trimishamsha shloka is ending(not chakra) bforeour shloka and

> sage is talking about aspect between planets,Lagna belonging to

> Shukra and Lagnas amsha falling within Ghata rashi and shukra and

> Saturn undergoing exchange in amsha.Do we need another example to

see

> how differen aspects are studied together.Where is Trimshamsha

chakra

> here.If Saravali is wrong too,then i cannot say anything.

>

> Respect

> Pradeep

> -- In , Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > The partial drishtis are graded in different strengths in the

> shloka

> > that you have quoted. I fail to see how the interpretation of

this

> > shloka puts an end to aspects in Vargas ,and how does it prove

that

> > rashi drishti is not to be considered as claimed by you.

> >

> > Why should the shubha grahas have only graded drishti and not

Rashi

> > drishti? There is nothing to support that premise in the shlokas

> from

> > Brihat Jataka talking about aspects in Trimshamshas.

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > I thought you were aware of where that shloka is from.

> > > It is present in Rajayogadhyaya and came into picture during my

> > > debate with shri PVR Rao.

> > > This shloka was debated as ,interpretation of this shloka will

> bring

> > > to end all doubts regarding vargamshas.

> > > It is relevant to our discussion as you have mentioned shubha

> grahas

> > > aspecting Lagnamsha,and lagnamsha i one among the shadvargas of

> Lagna.

> > >

> > > Now you may kindly say,how this has to be interpreted ,as rashi

> > > drishti is ruled out in this case.

> > >

> > > I have no problems with Rashi drishti.But as you see in this

case

> > > grades are being mentioned.

> > >

> > > Regsrding the shlokas(navamsha/trimshamsha),i did not have time

> > > yesterday in the night.Thus i have posted you the

shlokas,withfull

> > > explanation and refernces.Kindly see them.

> > >

> > > Respect

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > Do you mean to say that Parashara says that in connection with

> > > > Meshaamshe etc.? I doubt that shloka exists in the karakamsha

> > > adhyaaya,

> > > > but of course, I could be wrong.

> > > >

> > > > I asked you whether you accept the rashi drishtis that are

> > > mentioned by

> > > > Parashara and Jaimini or not? If Dashaaadhyaayi interprets the

> > > shlokas

> > > > on navamsha and Trimshamshas from Brihat Jataka, why not give

> what

> > > it says?

> > > >

> > > > You have given your interpretation of how amshakas should be

> > > > interpreted, but failed to address the queries. May I know

why?

> > > >

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > >

> > > > > Purna drishte Purna Yogam Ardha Drishte ardhameva cha

> > > > > Pada drishte Padayogamiti gyeyam kramat phalam.

> > > > >

> > > > > Is mentioned and hence the aspects are not about Rashi

> drishti.

> > > > >

> > > > > Now as i have mentioned in the past,though the name is

> > > > > dashadhyayi,the author covers shlokas,from most of the

> chapters as

> > > > > and when he finds some interrelationship or link.This i

> consider

> > > as a

> > > > > real blessing.Now how amshakas are interpreted,has been

> > > > > demonstrated ,for numerous contexts,and thus forming a

> guideline

> > > for

> > > > > other shloka interpretations.

> > > > >

> > > > > I will see the shlokas,and will write back.

> > > > >

> > > > > Respect

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Transits are to be seen no doubt from the rasis

synonymous

> to

> > > the

> > > > > > navamsha rasis, but when it is sphuta it is of the

> navamshesha

> > > and

> > > > > not

> > > > > > the rasis. There is a difference between the two.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I have already said I do not consider aspects in D-charts,

> > > unless

> > > > > > specifically mentioned in some yogas, and also that

barring

> > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > charts, in other varga charts I look at rashi aspects.

That

> does

> > > > > not

> > > > > > mean I should close my eyes to what is written in other

> > > respected

> > > > > texts.

> > > > > > That only means I look at charts from a different angle.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > There is nothing in the lagna shadvargake shloka to

indicate

> > > graded

> > > > > > aspects and so it does not rule out rashi drishti at all.

> Ans

> > > since

> > > > > you

> > > > > > have quoted both Parashara and Jaimini you should know

that

> > > rashi

> > > > > > drishtis are valid in Parashara too and exclusively so in

> > > Jaimini.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Your translation and mine of the shlokas differ and that

is

> why

> > > > > there is

> > > > > > no agreement. If you expect Dashaadhyaayi to give

divisional

> > > charts

> > > > > and

> > > > > > their interpretations, that is not possible as Varaha

> Mihira on

> > > > > whose

> > > > > > work it is only a commentary does not speak of it and it

is

> > > > > commentary

> > > > > > on only 10 of the 18 adhayaayas of Brihat jataka. If you

> read

> > > > > Brihat

> > > > > > jataka carefully, you will see reference o aspects in

> > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > there.

> > > > > > Since you have many times claimed superiority of

> Dashaadhyaayi

> > > over

> > > > > many

> > > > > > of the more ancient and respected classics, I find it

> strange

> > > as to

> > > > > why

> > > > > > you do not want to accept what is said in the original

text

> on

> > > > > which

> > > > > > Dashaadhyaayi is only a commentary and that too on 10

> adhyaayas

> > > as

> > > > > the

> > > > > > name suggests (that does not, of course, make it any less

> > > > > respectable).

> > > > > > There are many references to planets being placed in a

> navamsha,

> > > > > which

> > > > > > is not identical with the rasi whose name the navamsha

> enjoys,

> > > and

> > > > > the

> > > > > > results from them in the 21st adhyaaya. How do you map

back

> > > such a

> > > > > > navamsha to the rasi and what should be the logic? You

also

> see

> > > > > > reference to Guru occupying own Trimshamsha, irrespective

of

> > > rasi

> > > > > in the

> > > > > > same adhayaaya. There are too many references like this to

> > > question

> > > > > the

> > > > > > theory that the amshas need always be mapped back to

> identical

> > > rasi

> > > > > in

> > > > > > rasi chart.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Could you tell why this reluctance to accept Varaha

Mihira?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Meshamshe, Vrishamshe Transit results can be seen from

> Mesha

> > > and

> > > > > > > Vrishabha rashis.Thus you are aware of what i am

> > > saying.Moreover

> > > > > we

> > > > > > > have seen paparkshe.we have seen meshadi rashige

> swamshe.we

> > > have

> > > > > seen

> > > > > > > that bhrigwonkaraka varge ,as per your understanding

> cannot

> > > > > satisfy

> > > > > > > both mars and venus.The very next shloka is talking

about

> > > mars and

> > > > > > > venus yuti or aspecting.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Now we can forget all these as you are not williing to

> accept

> > > > > > > rashi,riksha etc as valid reasoning.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > We have seen Lagna shadvargake shloka with aspectual

> > > > > grades,proving

> > > > > > > that they ae not rashi drishtis.Couple of days back and

> many

> > > > > times in

> > > > > > > the past,i have heard from you that you don't support

> aspects

> > > in

> > > > > > > Vargas.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > If you still have the sam views,then to understand

> shadvargake

> > > > > > > shloka,we have to see planets aspecting lagna in ''six

> > > charts''.As

> > > > > > > lagna can fall in any rashi,you have to accept aspects

> fully

> > > in

> > > > > all

> > > > > > > Varga charts.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > This is relevant to our discussion as lagnamsha is also

> part

> > > of

> > > > > > > shadvargas of lagna.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > As you are aware ,the BPHS translator too has expressed

> his

> > > > > concern.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > How could I think shadvarga of lagna is shadvarga of

> rashi?

> > > > > Lagna

> > > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > > point on the eastern horizon at the time of birth of a

> > > jataka.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > There is no dispute about what is lagnamsha and what

is

> > > > > karakamsha

> > > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > all. At the same time when reference is to a graha

> falling

> > > in

> > > > > > > Lagnamsha

> > > > > > > > it refers to the navamsha rasi (or sector ruled by

one

> of

> > > the

> > > > > rasis

> > > > > > > of a

> > > > > > > > planet, barring Sun and Chandra if you like it that

> way) in

> > > > > which

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > lagnamsha falls. Now that being so where is the

shubha

> graha

> > > > > > > supposed to

> > > > > > > > fall in the shloka I quoted? Same with the Shubh

graha

> in

> > > > > > > Karakamsha and

> > > > > > > > needing drishti of shubha graha on it. It is easy to

say

> > > that

> > > > > > > these

> > > > > > > > need to be seen in rasi, but for lack of the

reference

> to

> > > rasi,

> > > > > > > there,

> > > > > > > > there is no reason to assume that it does not refer to

> > > navamsha

> > > > > > > rasi.

> > > > > > > > The reference to grahas

> in " Meshaamshe " , " Vrishabhaamshe "

> > > etc

> > > > > are

> > > > > > > quite

> > > > > > > > clear, in BPHS.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Of course Yes,you are correct.Varga is found for

this

> > > bindu

> > > > > and in

> > > > > > > > > the case of planets their degree decides.The rest

you

> have

> > > > > stated

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > also as per definition.My point was made under the

> > > impression

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > you have a view that,shadvarga of Lagna is

shadvarga

> of a

> > > > > > > rashi.If so

> > > > > > > > > it is not.Shad varga is found for Lagna bindu.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > The full Rashi/Kshethra in which Lagna bindu falls

> > > becomes its

> > > > > > > first

> > > > > > > > > Varga.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > The Translation is entiterely correct and no one can

> > > > > > > contradict.This

> > > > > > > > > is similar to one planet aspecting shadvargas of

> lagna.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Lagnamsha is already covered in the shadvargas of

> > > > > > > lagna.Karakamsha is

> > > > > > > > > similar too.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Now let us see it on a chart.Karkamasha is in

> > > Dhanu.Jupiter is

> > > > > > > placed

> > > > > > > > > in Mithuna Rashi.Shubha graha is aspecting

Karakamsha

> > > Lagna

> > > > > > > > > (Rashi).Similarly Lagnamsha.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > You are already aware of the rules for aspects.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I see your point of view. anyway even within

> shadvargas

> > > we

> > > > > look

> > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > degree of a planet falling within a certain span

of

> > > degrees

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > particular bindu.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I agree that rashi is a Varga and my question is

if

> one

> > > can

> > > > > > > look at

> > > > > > > > > > aspects in one Varga why not in other Vargas? I

am

> sure

> > > you

> > > > > know

> > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > personally I use navamsha to find only the

strength

> of

> > > > > grahas,

> > > > > > > but

> > > > > > > > > there

> > > > > > > > > > is no reason to rule out aspects in Navamshas or

> other

> > > > > charts

> > > > > > > > > totally.

> > > > > > > > > > One of the raj yogas mentioned by Parashara talks

of

> > > aspect

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > shubha

> > > > > > > > > > grahas on the karakamsha and Lagnamsha which

should

> > > also be

> > > > > > > > > tenanted by

> > > > > > > > > > Shubha grahas, leaving no doubt as to where the

> aspects

> > > are

> > > > > to

> > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > seen.

> > > > > > > > > > And for the record the translation to that effect

> is by

> > > an

> > > > > > > eminent

> > > > > > > > > > astrologer who was Professor of astrology in

Banaras

> > > Hindu

> > > > > > > > > University.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Lagna as a bindu was mentioned for driving home

> the

> > > > > shadvarga

> > > > > > > > > > > calculations,if any members were having

doubts.For

> > > > > shadvarga

> > > > > > > > > > > calculation of planets too we need the bindu or

> > > degree of

> > > > > a

> > > > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > > > > within a rashi, as you are aware.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > We have to look at Rashis.This is so because

Rashi

> > > (one 30

> > > > > > > degree

> > > > > > > > > > > sector ) is the first varga.As this Varga is

> > > synonymous

> > > > > with

> > > > > > > Bhava

> > > > > > > > > > > houses are analysed w.r to Rashis.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > If lagna is a bindu a you propose, and

nothing

> more,

> > > > > then

> > > > > > > how

> > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > > > indicate an entire rasi? Now if this is

> correct, and

> > > > > > > technically

> > > > > > > > > > > it is,

> > > > > > > > > > > > then by your reckoning there is no need to

look

> at

> > > rasis

> > > > > > > too. Is

> > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > what you mean to say?

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > If shadvargas are not related to the portion

> > > falling in

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > lagna

> > > > > > > > > > > rasis,

> > > > > > > > > > > > which holds the degree of lagna Madhya, then

it

> > > appears

> > > > > we

> > > > > > > must

> > > > > > > > > ask

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > sages to redefine Vargas. I doubt they need

our

> > > advise.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > There was a purpose.I just wanted to

explain

> it

> > > to the

> > > > > > > > > members if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > some of them are not sure on what shadvarga

of

> > > lagna

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > how it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > is calculated.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > As you have said Vargas are divisions of a

> > > rashi.But

> > > > > > > > > shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna is not the Vargas falling in

Lagna.Here

> > > lagna is

> > > > > > > not a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > rashi,but a bindu.Vargas are found from a

> > > degree.The

> > > > > > > degree

> > > > > > > > > of a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > planet or degree of lagna.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > As you may know we do notneed six charts to

> > > dtermine

> > > > > > > > > shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > lagna.All we need is the degree of lagna

and

> the

> > > rashi

> > > > > > > rising.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us take an example.Lagna is at 11

degrees

> in

> > > > > dhanu.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us find the shadvargas of Lagna with th

> help

> > > of

> > > > > rising

> > > > > > > > > rashi

> > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > degree.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > 1st Varga - The Rashi in which Lagna bindu

is

> > > > > falling -

> > > > > > > Dhanu

> > > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd Varga - The Hora in which Lagna bindu is

> > > falling -

> > > > > As

> > > > > > > 11

> > > > > > > > > > > degrees

> > > > > > > > > > > > > falls in the 1st half of dhanu - Surya Hora

> > > > > > > > > > > > > 3rd Varga - The drekkana in which Lagna

bindu

> is

> > > > > falling -

> > > > > > > As

> > > > > > > > > 11

> > > > > > > > > > > > > degrees falls in the 2nd 1/3rd of dhanu -

> > > Drekkana is

> > > > > > > Mesha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > 4th Varga - As 11 degrees falls in the 3rd

> > > > > > > saptamsha ,Lagna

> > > > > > > > > > > saptamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > is Kumbha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Similraly - Lagna navamsha is Karka,Lagna

> > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > dhanu.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus the purpose of whole exercise was to

say

> that

> > > > > when

> > > > > > > we say

> > > > > > > > > > > > > shadvargas of Lagna or Mars,it does not

mean

> the

> > > > > rashis

> > > > > > > owned

> > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna or Mars.But the Rashis on towhich

they

> are

> > > > > > > placed,having

> > > > > > > > > > > > > hora,drekkana etc etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas of Mars in the 2nd Rashi from

> karakamsha

> > > too

> > > > > is no

> > > > > > > > > > > differet.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > There are many meanings,that is why Rashi is

> > > called as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kshethra /Riksha /havana etc.But i don't

think

> > > sage

> > > > > will

> > > > > > > use

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > saword to represent something belonging to

> same

> > > class.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > For example sage will not use ''sva'' to

mean

> 2nd

> > > as

> > > > > well

> > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > 3rd.Then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > we cannot interpret.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly Rashi and navamsha will not be

> > > represented

> > > > > > > using the

> > > > > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > > > word.Rashi/Kshethra/Riksha/Bhvana/Lagna etc

> are

> > > > > synonyms

> > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > ifthey

> > > > > > > > > > > > > are used for navamsha then what is the whole

> > > purpose

> > > > > > > behind

> > > > > > > > > > > defintion.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand sva was used for iems from

> > > different

> > > > > > > > > classes.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > This wasin mind while making such a

> statement.I

> > > will

> > > > > try

> > > > > > > my

> > > > > > > > > best

> > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > polish my style of writing.I accept my

> > > limitations in

> > > > > > > writing.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have not understood your question or the

> > > intent

> > > > > behind

> > > > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas are divisions, within a rasi,

ruled

> by

> > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > grahas.

> > > > > > > > > > > So

> > > > > > > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > one wants t look at Vargas falling in

lagna

> the

> > > shad

> > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > will

> > > > > > > > > > > > > mean

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the rasi equivalent occurring at lagna

> position

> > > in

> > > > > the 6

> > > > > > > > > > > divisional

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > charts of Rashi, Hora, Dreshkana,

Navamsha,

> > > > > > > Dwaadashamsha

> > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamsha. Or at least this is what I

have

> > > learnt.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sages did not use words in vain or

context.

> I

> > > > > agree. But

> > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean they used the words to mean only one

> thing

> > > > > always.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I never said that the meaning can be

> changed to

> > > > > suit our

> > > > > > > > > > > > > convenience and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would request you not to attribute such

> > > > > sentiments to

> > > > > > > me.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > However I do say that word are used in

> different

> > > > > > > contexts to

> > > > > > > > > > > mean

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > different things, especially in Sanskrit

> texts

> > > of

> > > > > > > Jyotish. I

> > > > > > > > > > > have,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > just

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a few minutes back use of " Sva " with

> different

> > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > places by Varaha Mihira to you. I hope

you

> do

> > > not

> > > > > also

> > > > > > > > > attribute

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > words that you attributed to me to the

> venerated

> > > > > Varaha

> > > > > > > > > Mihira.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar,.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pls tell me what you mean by shadvargas

of

> > > > > lagna.How

> > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > find

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them.Do you go by ownership or placement

> > > > > > > > > > > > > (Rashi/navamsha/dwadshamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc).

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are shlokas in Varahamihiras text

> which

> > > > > > > > > says ,Okarkshe

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Purushamshakae.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which means in Ojarashi and Oja amsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As per me sages will not use any words

> out of

> > > > > > > context.If

> > > > > > > > > he

> > > > > > > > > > > wants

> > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > say amsha he will mention it.He will

not

> use

> > > > > Rashi to

> > > > > > > > > mean as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > amsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ojarkshe is Oja Rashi.Similarly

Paparkshe

> is

> > > Papa

> > > > > > > Rashi.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you want to say as per our

conveninece

> we

> > > can

> > > > > > > change

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of riksha/rashi/bhavana/bhavas as

navamsha

> > > then i

> > > > > > > cannot

> > > > > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anything.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can only respect your views.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will tell you why that happens. You

> begin

> > > with

> > > > > > > quoting

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then give a sutra from Jaimini as

being

> > > said by

> > > > > > > > > Parashara.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Interpretation of sutras is not the

> easiest

> > > of

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > things,

> > > > > > > > > > > more

> > > > > > > > > > > > > so

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jaimini's Upadesha sutras. That the

> sutras

> > > use

> > > > > > > > > KaTaPaYaadi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > encryption

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > makes them even more difficult to

> > > interpret. I

> > > > > am

> > > > > > > sure

> > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > noticed

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this when Sreenadh interpreted the

> > > KaTaPaYaadi

> > > > > > > Varga in

> > > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > wrong

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fashion.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then there is your insistence to let

> > > Sanskrit

> > > > > > > grammar

> > > > > > > > > give

> > > > > > > > > > > a go

> > > > > > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that can make interpretation of a

> shloka or

> > > > > sutra

> > > > > > > fit

> > > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposition.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any of the Shodasha Vargas of a rasi

> can be

> > > > > > > referred to

> > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far as I know in astrology, when one

> talks

> > > of

> > > > > Varga,

> > > > > > > > > without

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > qualifying

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it, or Amshas that generally refers to

> > > navamsha

> > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dwadashaamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another reason that we can not agree,

or

> > > seem to

> > > > > > > agree,

> > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reluctant to call a navamsha by the

> > > nomenclature

> > > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > rasi.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > makes it difficult to convey what I

> mean to

> > > say

> > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > English

> > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the language of the net and which

both

> of us

> > > > > know.

> > > > > > > Now

> > > > > > > > > > > since you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > want to use the word Mesha navamsha as

> > > Mesha is

> > > > > a

> > > > > > > rashi

> > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > logic it can not be a navamsha, it

> becomes

> > > > > > > difficult to

> > > > > > > > > > > convey

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understand by the texts.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will like to draw your attention to

> the

> > > > > literal

> > > > > > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi. It means a heap and nothing

more.

> In

> > > > > astrology

> > > > > > > > > since

> > > > > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > encompasses many stars that make up a

> > > nakshatra

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > 1/12th

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > division of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the zodiac is called a Rasi. Or at

least

> > > this

> > > > > is my

> > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason of using the word rasi for the

> 1/12th

> > > > > > > division

> > > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > zodiac.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not agree that by Chandra in Guru

> > > Varga it

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > meant

> > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandra is being seen. To me we are

> talking

> > > > > about is

> > > > > > > > > whether

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandra is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > falling in the Varga of Guru in which

> ever

> > > rasi

> > > > > he

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > occupying.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Navamsha we see whether Chandra is

> occupying

> > > > > Pisces

> > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sagittarius

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > navamsha. I also do not agree that

> there are

> > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > Chandra

> > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of any

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > planet for that matter. The 16 Vargas

> that

> > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > > talks

> > > > > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that of a Rasi, beginning from the

Rashi

> > > itself.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the Vargas are not owned by

different

> > > > > planets,

> > > > > > > pray

> > > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the sage

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tell us to see occupation of a

friend,

> own

> > > etc.

> > > > > > > Varga to

> > > > > > > > > > > assess

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > strength of a planet in the Varga

> concerned?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have interacted with many

astrologers

> of

> > > > > > > yesteryears

> > > > > > > > > (with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > respect to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > my age group) and have never found

them

> > > > > claiming the

> > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only lagna and planets.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you insist that sage Parashara

gave

> the

> > > SU.

> > > > > 52.-

> > > > > > > > > " Tatra

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bhrigwongaraka

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > varge paradarikaha " , perhaps you are

> > > referring

> > > > > to

> > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > edition

> > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BPHS

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that I do not have. However I do have

> that

> > > in

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > umpteen

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > texts on Jaimini that I do have in my

> > > library.

> > > > > And

> > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > way,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > scholars have interpreted that to

mean

> 9th

> > > from

> > > > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the 2nd.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not agree that a graha can

> > > simultaneously

> > > > > > > occupy

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars, simultaneously, as is

> being

> > > > > > > suggested

> > > > > > > > > > > whether in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in any of the Vargas. It could only

> occupy

> > > one

> > > > > or

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > other.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have seen you arguing in favor of

> looking

> > > at

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > Shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grahas Venus and Mars. I would like

you

> to

> > > look

> > > > > at

> > > > > > > all

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > six

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > charts

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whose Vargas together are referred as

> > > > > Shadvargas and

> > > > > > > > > try to

> > > > > > > > > > > find

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > out

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whether they do indeed contain the 6

> Vargas

> > > of

> > > > > Venus

> > > > > > > > > and 6

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars. I am sure that you will find

them

> to

> > > > > contain

> > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > 5

> > > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > each of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the grahas. Once you confirm this by

> > > looking at

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > 6

> > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > self,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tell me how one can look at

Shadvargas

> of

> > > Venus

> > > > > or

> > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested to be the interpretation of

> the

> > > sutra

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > you are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > referring to.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You may also be interested to know

that

> > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > talks

> > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > AK

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > falling in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Varga of Chandra, Mars or Venus

also

> > > having

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > roving

> > > > > > > > > > > eye

> > > > > > > > > > > > > on

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wives. So the combination of Venus

and

> Mars

> > > > > being

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > giving

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the roving eye for other's wives,

that

> you

> > > are

> > > > > > > > > advancing as

> > > > > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > standalone

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > principle, may not, necessarily, be

the

> way

> > > the

> > > > > sage

> > > > > > > > > looked

> > > > > > > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > their

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > interpretation.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Those were written by me.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am very dissappointed to see

> > > that ,inspite

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > repeating

> > > > > > > > > > > > > numerus

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > times,you are unable to get what i

am

> > > saying.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not talking about rashis

lorded

> by

> > > > > shukra or

> > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > here.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > am

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > talking about the shadvargas vargas

of

> > > mars

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > shukra.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pls tell me what is the meaning of

> > > shadvargas

> > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > simply

> > > > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lagna.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the rashi in which lagna is

> > > placed.The

> > > > > > > > > navamshaka of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna,Trimshamshaka of Lagna

etc.Can

> we

> > > see

> > > > > any

> > > > > > > > > lordship

> > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > say.Lagna does not own any rashi.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly when we say vargas of

> Venus -It

> > > > > means

> > > > > > > Rashi

> > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > Venus,Hora,navamshaka,drekkana,trimshamshaka

> > > > > etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shadvarga is never the rashi owned

by

> a

> > > > > > > planet.Then

> > > > > > > > > Lagna

> > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > never

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have shadvarga.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say,Chandra

in

> > > Guru

> > > > > > > Varga - We

> > > > > > > > > > > are not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > seeing

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the shadvarga of Guru,but that of

> > > chandra.Is

> > > > > > > chandra

> > > > > > > > > > > placed in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guru

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rashi?Is Chandra navamshaka in Guru

> > > Rashi.Is

> > > > > > > Chandra

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamshaka in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guru Rashi etc is what we check.If

so

> > > chandras

> > > > > > > vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > fall in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > guru

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashis or we say chandra is in

> guruvargas.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the same reason schoplars of

> > > yesteryears

> > > > > > > always

> > > > > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for our natal Lagna and Planets.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand you are taking

them

> as

> > > > > owned by

> > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > planet.Every

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > shadvarga that derive is like

> that.You may

> > > > > check

> > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > shri

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Narasimha,how he is deriving it for

> his

> > > > > software.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the same reason Bhrigu and

Angara

> can

> > > have

> > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > together

> > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rashi which is 2nd from

> Karakamsha.Sage

> > > > > clearly

> > > > > > > talks

> > > > > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vargas from both.Moreover the next

> shloka

> > > is

> > > > > > > talking

> > > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus together or aspecting the 2nd

> from

> > > > > > > karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we go by your

> > > > > explanation,we

> > > > > > > > > have to

> > > > > > > > > > > opt

> > > > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just one among shukra or Mars which

> is not

> > > > > > > > > proper.Their

> > > > > > > > > > > Joint

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > influence creates sexual drive.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I request you to kindly read this

with

> > > care.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rspect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> 40>,

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The below remarks are not from my

> mail

> > > at

> > > > > all.

> > > > > > > I do

> > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > know

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think I would write that. I am

sure

> you

> > > know

> > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > my

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > style

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of writing at all.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " >From my experience -Mars + Venus

> > > creates

> > > > > > > certin

> > > > > > > > > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced

this.Why

> are

> > > you

> > > > > > > going

> > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > owned by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just one of them and that too

> without a

> > > > > > > planetary

> > > > > > > > > link

> > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > worrying me.Shri Rath has

translated

> > > so,i

> > > > > > > agree.But

> > > > > > > > > i

> > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will

> > > definitely

> > > > > > > correct

> > > > > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > benfit

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of jyotish community. "

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As to why I said they could not be

> > > having

> > > > > their

> > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > together in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi or Bhava does not need any

> deeper

> > > > > > > explanation.

> > > > > > > > > If

> > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > looking

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at the 2nd from Karakamsha in the

> rasi

> > > > > chart,

> > > > > > > as you

> > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > right, you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > could not have both Mesha and

> Vrishabha

> > > or

> > > > > Tula

> > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Vrishchika

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd from the Karakamsha, is that

> not so?

> > > > > > > Similarly

> > > > > > > > > if in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the 2nd from Karakamsha is to be

> seen,

> > > the

> > > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > > > could be

> > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > navamshas.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I though you meant so.Because in

> > > > > subsequent

> > > > > > > lines

> > > > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > see

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and Karakamsha being used for

the

> same

> > > > > > > > > purpose.But if

> > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there are other places where

> swamsha

> > > is

> > > > > used

> > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagnamsha ,then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i can trust you if you can

point

> me to

> > > > > that.

> > > > > > > This

> > > > > > > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problem and in no way it will

> affect

> > > us.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars can ofcourse

have

> their

> > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > in a

> > > > > > > > > > > single

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashi or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bhava.Venus can have navamsha

> > > there,Mars

> > > > > can

> > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there,Venus can have Trimshamsha

> > > > > there,Mars

> > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there,they both can have

drekkana

> > > there

> > > > > etc

> > > > > > > etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus sage is talking about

Bhrigu

> and

> > > > > Angara

> > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > (as

> > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > identified gramattically)

having

> varga

> > > > > there

> > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > it is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > very

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > much

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you note the next line -Sage

is

> > > talking

> > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > joining or aspecting the 2nd

from

> > > > > Karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From my experience -Mars +

Venus

> > > creates

> > > > > > > certin

> > > > > > > > > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced

> this.Why

> > > are

> > > > > you

> > > > > > > going

> > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > owned by just one of them and

> that too

> > > > > > > without a

> > > > > > > > > > > planetary

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > link is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really worrying me.Shri Rath has

> > > > > translated

> > > > > > > so,i

> > > > > > > > > > > > > agree.But i

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath

will

> > > > > definitely

> > > > > > > > > correct

> > > > > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > benfit of jyotish community.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am surprised as to why you say

> > > so.That

> > > > > they

> > > > > > > > > cannot

> > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > together.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pardeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In

>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> 40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > > 40>,

> > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have never said that I do

not

> > > think

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different where the context

> demands

> > > so.

> > > > > At

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > > > time I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammar can be put to rest to

> in the

> > > > > name of

> > > > > > > > > > > context,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sound

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course if you want

contextual

> > > > > translation

> > > > > > > > > only,

> > > > > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > certainly say that

the " Meshadi

> > > raashige

> > > > > > > > > swaamshe "

> > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > always be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > translated as " Falling in

Mesha

> > > > > navamsha in

> > > > > > > > > Mesha

> > > > > > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc. " .

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way " Tatra

> Bhrigwonkaraka

> > > > > Varge " ,

> > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mention, does

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean varga of both Venus and

> mars,

> > > but

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus OR

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > due to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the grammar only. varga of two

> > > planets

> > > > > can

> > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > fall

> > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bhava/amsha/rasi whether in

> rasi or

> > > > > > > Navamsha or

> > > > > > > > > any

> > > > > > > > > > > > > other

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Grammatically,what you are

> saying

> > > is

> > > > > also

> > > > > > > > > true.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But Jyotish defintions play

a

> > > > > preceding

> > > > > > > role

> > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > choosing

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammatical meaning.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example one meaning of

> > > > > labhe ,Swamshe

> > > > > > > etc

> > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 11th

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But if we go by that we will

> > > > > definitely

> > > > > > > > > translate

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamshe in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > meshadi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashige as ''in

> Swamsha'',thereby

> > > > > > > translating

> > > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > full

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart.This as you too

> agree,then

> > > > > cannot

> > > > > > > pass

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > test,of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > subsequent shlokas.I

> understand

> > > gladly

> > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > too

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > agree that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha and karakamsha are

the

> > > same.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So the context decides

> > > plural/singular

> > > > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > necessarily

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the ''E''

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as you have rightly

mentioned.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But in essence what i want

to

> say

> > > > > is ''E''

> > > > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > always

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean ''in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the'' as you have

> > > > > interpreted.Labheshe is

> > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example.Karake

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus it can very well mean

> Varga

> > > of

> > > > > > > Shukra and

> > > > > > > > > > > Mars-

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > six vargas or one varga.(Not

> > > lordship)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra -(There) In the

second

> from

> > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga or Vargas of Venus

and

> Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now why should we need two

> > > > > qualifiesrs for

> > > > > > > > > > > destination

> > > > > > > > > > > > > (1)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from karakamsha 2)in the

> vargas

> > > of?)-

> > > > > if

> > > > > > > we had

> > > > > > > > > > > another

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your interpretation is

> right.That

> > > > > planet

> > > > > > > will

> > > > > > > > > > > answer

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > question -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who is in the vargas of ?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly - Swamshad dhane

> Shukrar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Swamshad dhane is already

> > > pointing to

> > > > > > > > > destination-

> > > > > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > need

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > another ''in the'' vargas

of.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say

in

> > > the 2nd

> > > > > > > from

> > > > > > > > > > > > > karakamsha if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mars and venus are

present,it

> > > fits in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammatically.Moreover

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i had

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentioned rashi lordship

> without

> > > > > planetary

> > > > > > > > > link

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (placement/amsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is too general.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In

> > > <%

> 40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> 40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > > 40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > > > > 40>,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I may be wrong but

the " E "

> by

> > > itself

> > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > point

> > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > word Shadvarga indicating

6

> > > Vargas

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > group

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (though it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more than one unit) and

> > > so " Varge " ,

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > singular is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " E " means " in " . I would be

> > > happy if

> > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > example

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of " Varge "

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plural

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can be given.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not at all think that

> > > Vargaka

> > > > > or

> > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > singular and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargake

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge is plural, at all.

> Both

> > > the

> > > > > > > manner of

> > > > > > > > > > > using

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > indicates singular. it is

> no use

> > > > > > > projecting

> > > > > > > > > > > what is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clearly

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saptami

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vibhakti and singular as

> being a

> > > > > plural

> > > > > > > > > word. If

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dvivachana it may

> > > become " VargyoH "

> > > > > > > > > or " VargeSu "

> > > > > > > > > > > (for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bahuvachan)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge. Perhaps some

Sanskrit

> > > > > scholar on

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > list

> > > > > > > > > > > > > would

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > comment

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on this.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, much as I would like

it

> to

> > > > > resolve,

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > issue

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > remains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unresolved.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will give you a

relevant

> > > > > example to

> > > > > > > > > explain

> > > > > > > > > > > how

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VarGE

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > context of plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna Shad-VargaKE - Is

> > > pointing

> > > > > to

> > > > > > > all

> > > > > > > > > > > vargas -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plural.You

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > may

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > note

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that the grammatical

> ending is

> > > > > > > with ''E''

> > > > > > > > > > > showing

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plurals

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expressed with such an

> ending.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now from

Vrishamsha''Ka''

> and

> > > > > Tulamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > example we

> > > > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > conclude

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VargaKA and VarGA can

be

> used

> > > for

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > > > purpose in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ekavachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > singular form and

VargaKE

> and

> > > > > VarGE

> > > > > > > can be

> > > > > > > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bahuvachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plural form.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope this may help us

in

> > > > > resolving

> > > > > > > our

> > > > > > > > > > > issue.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------

--

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this

> > > incoming

> > > > > > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Checked by AVG Free

> Edition.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus

> > > Database:

> > > > > > > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this

> > > message

> > > > > have

> > > > > > > been

> > > > > > > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------

--

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this

> incoming

> > > > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus

> Database:

> > > > > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this

> message

> > > have

> > > > > been

> > > > > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------

--

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

> > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus

Database:

> > > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this

message

> have

> > > been

> > > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---

--

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

> message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message

have

> been

> > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------

--

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have

been

> > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > -----------

--

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> 269.10.2/890 -

> > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > ---------------

--

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

269.10.2/890 -

> > > Release

> > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > -------------------

--

> ----

> > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/890 -

> Release

> > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandrashekhar,

 

I haven't noticed that, on other lists. This list was was badly spammed, with

number of non-jyotish posts, unfortunatelly, which I don't consider as

'activity' at all!

Warmest wishes,

Anna

 

 

Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

Dear Pradeep,

 

If you think " ca " does not mean AND, in Sanskrit then there may not be

any point in discussing this any further. And if translations of all

other learned scholars are to be rejected in favour of Dashaadhyaayi,

then there is no use discussing what Parashara said too as Dashaadhyaayi

is a commentary on Brihat jataka.

 

Personally, I do not think that only Dashaadhyaayi encompasses all the

vedic astrological knowledge though it is one amongst the respected texts.

 

Chandrashekhar.

 

vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>

> If you remember our first discussion,which is present in the

> archives,you were only mentioning about shukra and saturn in

> paraspara amsha and aspecting each other.You had added that these are

> aspects in Trimshamsha chakra.

>

> I had then quoted the second line which points to Lagna being that of

> Shukra and its navamsha in ghata rashi.

>

> For which your reply was we are looking into different texts.

>

> You have only quoted the 2nd line from Saravali.

>

> The full shloka in Saravali is as follows -

> Shukra Sithau yadi paraspara bhaga samsthau

> shaukre cha drishti pathagavudaye ghatamshe

>

> Thus the first line does not contain any aspect mentioned.How can we

> say that the first line is stand alone.Do you say if Shukra and

> Saturn are in each others amsha a lady will behave like this.

> The second line makes it complete.The lagna should be that of

> shukra,saturn and venus should aspect each other,and lagnamsha should

> fall in Ghatamsha.

>

> Thus Dashadhyayi kara is crystal clear on what Saravali is

> saying.Atleast for this shloka i feel there is no ambiguity needed.

>

> Respect

> Pradeep

>

> Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > If Dashaadhyaayi thinks Saravali is a standard text to rely upon (

> as

> > you have quoted a reference therein quoting Saravali to support

> some

> > interpretation) why say that other concepts in Saravali are wrong?

> > Saravali says " Shaukre ca drishtipathagaavudaye ghataamshe " etc.

> > indicating the necessity of exchange of amshas and mutual aspect

> between

> > Shukra and Shani as concurrent condition for the first yoga to

> fructify.

> > And then goes on to say that if for a lagna having rasi of Shukra

> and

> > navamsha of Shani similar results would ensue. GhataaMshe has been

> > interpreted as the amsha of Shani and not merely amsha of Kumbha by

> many

> > translators.

> >

> > I can not comment on the interpretation of Dashaadhyaayikar of the

> > shloka but the shloka from Brihat Jataka that I have also says

> > " driksamsthaavasitasito parasparaamshe shoke vaa yadi ghata

> > raashisambhavoMshaH. " followed by the next line that I did not find

> > necessary to quote as it does not talk about the yoga but only the

> > results, which you have already quoted and I felt may not be

> necessary

> > to post on line.

> >

> > That there are two distinct yogas is also not new to translators of

> > Brihat jataka. Since you accept that the first line does say about

> > occupation of each others amsha AND aspect on each other is indeed

> > covered in the first line, the reluctance to accept aspects in

> specific

> > cases is something that I am not able to understand.

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > I can clearly understand your position.Especially as you have

> > > said,the texts that we are referring to are different.Here comes

> the

> > > importance of Dashadhyayi.After my explanation you can also see

> that

> > > it is not only dashadhyayi ,but Saravali as well is having the

> same

> > > opinion on the shloka explained below.

> > >

> > > As i have mentioned yesterday,dashadhyayi is not covering just the

> > > first 10 chapters as the name suggests.For example let me take a

> > > chapter towards the end ,chapter 22-Sthree Jataka Adhyaya.

> > >

> > > Thalakkulathu Govinda Bhattathiri has given interpretations,for

> all

> > > the shlokas from 1 through 16,except shloka 13, while interpreting

> > > chapters 1 through 10. Shloka 13 as you can see is pretty straight

> > > forward.

> > >

> > > Now let us take the shloka which as per you is referring

> > > to ''Trimshamsha Chakra'' with aspects therein.Firstly the results

> > > for planets being placed in rashis belonging to Mesha onwards,and

> > > within that Trimshamshas belonging to Mars onwards is explained

> and

> > > ends by shloka 6.

> > >

> > > Now let us take

> > >

> > > ''Driksamstha VasithaSithau Parasparamshe

> > > Shaukre Va yadi Ghata Rashi Sambhavomsha''

> > > Next 2 lines explains the result.

> > >

> > > As per you,there is only a reference regarding Venus and Saturn

> > > aspecting each other and also in each others Amsha.This is covered

> > > in the first line.My worry is where has the second line gone in

> the

> > > text that you are having.Either it was not interpreted or it was

> > > inadvertently got missed out from printing.

> > >

> > > Now Dashadhyayi says -

> > >

> > > Driksamsthau ithyadi Yoga dvayam - Two Yogas.First one is

> > > corresponding to the first line as we have seen.

> > >

> > > Shaukre Rashau Yadi Kumbhamshe Udethi ..Thatha dvitheeyam - the

> > > second.Meaning ,The Ascendant should be either Tula or Vrishabha

> and

> > > it should have Kumbhamsha(Kumbha is Ghata - Ghata Rashi

> > > Sambhavomsha).

> > >

> > > Now the author says, as per some these two can be taken as one

> yoga

> > > as well(Saravali too says so).

> > >

> > > Parasparamshagatha Vasitha Sithou Paraspara Drishtau Shaukre

> > > Rashavudayathi Kumbhamshakashcha Bhavathi Yadee - then the

> > > result.And the author says -T hatha Cha Saravalyam.And quotes

> > > corresponding shloka from Saravali,where again the said line is

> > > present(sanskrit).Thus it says - For a Lady to have such a strong

> > > sexual desire - Purusha Veshadhari(One dressign up as a man -thus

> > > lesbian),her ascendant should belong to Venus and the amsha of her

> > > ascendant should fall in Kumbha Rashi,and in her chart Saturn and

> > > Venus should aspect each other and also have exchange of amshas.

> > >

> > > Thus you see,in either case there is a line which is missing in

> your

> > > book,which helps us to understand that it is not a varga chakra.I

> > > dont know how it happened.

> > >

> > > Thus if Dashadhyayi was not there,then i would have also not got

> any

> > > opportunity to understand this in such detail.This is the beauty

> of

> > > this text and as you know without any value ParashnaMarga will not

> > > praise it with such a high regard.The rest of the text is great

> and

> > > explains every concept with authority,quoting many sources.

> > >

> > > I consider you with great regard(Gurusthana) and holds respect

> > > towards your views and analysis.You may kindly understand that,i

> > > will not misquote and misrepresent,especially when the subject is

> > > Jyotish.If some others in this list is having mistrust,they should

> > > understand that i am not the only keralite living in this universe

> > > and they can seek help from others to see if i am cheating.I have

> no

> > > hatred towards their words.If it brings happiness to them let them

> > > continue with false allegations.

> > >

> > > I will prepare the paper and then would request your good self to

> > > review.I am so thankful that you have tested me with tough

> questions

> > > and logic,which has helped me to learn more.

> > >

> > > Respect

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > >

> > > > Purna drishte Purna Yogam Ardha Drishte ardhameva cha

> > > > Pada drishte Padayogamiti gyeyam kramat phalam.

> > > >

> > > > Is mentioned and hence the aspects are not about Rashi drishti.

> > > >

> > > > Now as i have mentioned in the past,though the name is

> > > > dashadhyayi,the author covers shlokas,from most of the chapters

> as

> > > > and when he finds some interrelationship or link.This i consider

> > > as a

> > > > real blessing.Now how amshakas are interpreted,has been

> > > > demonstrated ,for numerous contexts,and thus forming a guideline

> > > for

> > > > other shloka interpretations.

> > > >

> > > > I will see the shlokas,and will write back.

> > > >

> > > > Respect

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > Transits are to be seen no doubt from the rasis synonymous to

> > > the

> > > > > navamsha rasis, but when it is sphuta it is of the navamshesha

> > > and

> > > > not

> > > > > the rasis. There is a difference between the two.

> > > > >

> > > > > I have already said I do not consider aspects in D-charts,

> > > unless

> > > > > specifically mentioned in some yogas, and also that barring

> > > > navamsha

> > > > > charts, in other varga charts I look at rashi aspects. That

> does

> > > > not

> > > > > mean I should close my eyes to what is written in other

> > > respected

> > > > texts.

> > > > > That only means I look at charts from a different angle.

> > > > >

> > > > > There is nothing in the lagna shadvargake shloka to indicate

> > > graded

> > > > > aspects and so it does not rule out rashi drishti at all. Ans

> > > since

> > > > you

> > > > > have quoted both Parashara and Jaimini you should know that

> > > rashi

> > > > > drishtis are valid in Parashara too and exclusively so in

> > > Jaimini.

> > > > >

> > > > > Your translation and mine of the shlokas differ and that is

> why

> > > > there is

> > > > > no agreement. If you expect Dashaadhyaayi to give divisional

> > > charts

> > > > and

> > > > > their interpretations, that is not possible as Varaha Mihira

> on

> > > > whose

> > > > > work it is only a commentary does not speak of it and it is

> > > > commentary

> > > > > on only 10 of the 18 adhayaayas of Brihat jataka. If you read

> > > > Brihat

> > > > > jataka carefully, you will see reference o aspects in

> > > Trimshamsha

> > > > there.

> > > > > Since you have many times claimed superiority of Dashaadhyaayi

> > > over

> > > > many

> > > > > of the more ancient and respected classics, I find it strange

> as

> > > to

> > > > why

> > > > > you do not want to accept what is said in the original text on

> > > > which

> > > > > Dashaadhyaayi is only a commentary and that too on 10

> adhyaayas

> > > as

> > > > the

> > > > > name suggests (that does not, of course, make it any less

> > > > respectable).

> > > > > There are many references to planets being placed in a

> navamsha,

> > > > which

> > > > > is not identical with the rasi whose name the navamsha enjoys,

> > > and

> > > > the

> > > > > results from them in the 21st adhyaaya. How do you map back

> such

> > > a

> > > > > navamsha to the rasi and what should be the logic? You also

> see

> > > > > reference to Guru occupying own Trimshamsha, irrespective of

> > > rasi

> > > > in the

> > > > > same adhayaaya. There are too many references like this to

> > > question

> > > > the

> > > > > theory that the amshas need always be mapped back to identical

> > > rasi

> > > > in

> > > > > rasi chart.

> > > > >

> > > > > Could you tell why this reluctance to accept Varaha Mihira?

> > > > >

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Meshamshe, Vrishamshe Transit results can be seen from Mesha

> > > and

> > > > > > Vrishabha rashis.Thus you are aware of what i am

> > > saying.Moreover

> > > > we

> > > > > > have seen paparkshe.we have seen meshadi rashige swamshe.we

> > > have

> > > > seen

> > > > > > that bhrigwonkaraka varge ,as per your understanding cannot

> > > > satisfy

> > > > > > both mars and venus.The very next shloka is talking about

> mars

> > > and

> > > > > > venus yuti or aspecting.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Now we can forget all these as you are not williing to

> accept

> > > > > > rashi,riksha etc as valid reasoning.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > We have seen Lagna shadvargake shloka with aspectual

> > > > grades,proving

> > > > > > that they ae not rashi drishtis.Couple of days back and many

> > > > times in

> > > > > > the past,i have heard from you that you don't support

> aspects

> > > in

> > > > > > Vargas.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If you still have the sam views,then to understand

> shadvargake

> > > > > > shloka,we have to see planets aspecting lagna in ''six

> > > charts''.As

> > > > > > lagna can fall in any rashi,you have to accept aspects fully

> > > in

> > > > all

> > > > > > Varga charts.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > This is relevant to our discussion as lagnamsha is also

> part of

> > > > > > shadvargas of lagna.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As you are aware ,the BPHS translator too has expressed his

> > > > concern.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > How could I think shadvarga of lagna is shadvarga of

> rashi?

> > > > Lagna

> > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > point on the eastern horizon at the time of birth of a

> > > jataka.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > There is no dispute about what is lagnamsha and what is

> > > > karakamsha

> > > > > > at

> > > > > > > all. At the same time when reference is to a graha

> falling in

> > > > > > Lagnamsha

> > > > > > > it refers to the navamsha rasi (or sector ruled by one of

> > > the

> > > > rasis

> > > > > > of a

> > > > > > > planet, barring Sun and Chandra if you like it that way)

> in

> > > > which

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > lagnamsha falls. Now that being so where is the shubha

> graha

> > > > > > supposed to

> > > > > > > fall in the shloka I quoted? Same with the Shubh graha in

> > > > > > Karakamsha and

> > > > > > > needing drishti of shubha graha on it. It is easy to say

> that

> > > > > > these

> > > > > > > need to be seen in rasi, but for lack of the reference to

> > > rasi,

> > > > > > there,

> > > > > > > there is no reason to assume that it does not refer to

> > > navamsha

> > > > > > rasi.

> > > > > > > The reference to grahas in " Meshaamshe " , " Vrishabhaamshe "

> > > etc

> > > > are

> > > > > > quite

> > > > > > > clear, in BPHS.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Of course Yes,you are correct.Varga is found for this

> > > bindu

> > > > and in

> > > > > > > > the case of planets their degree decides.The rest you

> have

> > > > stated

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > also as per definition.My point was made under the

> > > impression

> > > > that

> > > > > > > > you have a view that,shadvarga of Lagna is shadvarga of

> a

> > > > > > rashi.If so

> > > > > > > > it is not.Shad varga is found for Lagna bindu.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > The full Rashi/Kshethra in which Lagna bindu falls

> becomes

> > > its

> > > > > > first

> > > > > > > > Varga.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > The Translation is entiterely correct and no one can

> > > > > > contradict.This

> > > > > > > > is similar to one planet aspecting shadvargas of lagna.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Lagnamsha is already covered in the shadvargas of

> > > > > > lagna.Karakamsha is

> > > > > > > > similar too.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Now let us see it on a chart.Karkamasha is in

> > > Dhanu.Jupiter is

> > > > > > placed

> > > > > > > > in Mithuna Rashi.Shubha graha is aspecting Karakamsha

> Lagna

> > > > > > > > (Rashi).Similarly Lagnamsha.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > You are already aware of the rules for aspects.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I see your point of view. anyway even within

> shadvargas

> > > we

> > > > look

> > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > degree of a planet falling within a certain span of

> > > degrees

> > > > and

> > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > particular bindu.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I agree that rashi is a Varga and my question is if

> one

> > > can

> > > > > > look at

> > > > > > > > > aspects in one Varga why not in other Vargas? I am

> sure

> > > you

> > > > know

> > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > personally I use navamsha to find only the strength of

> > > > grahas,

> > > > > > but

> > > > > > > > there

> > > > > > > > > is no reason to rule out aspects in Navamshas or other

> > > > charts

> > > > > > > > totally.

> > > > > > > > > One of the raj yogas mentioned by Parashara talks of

> > > aspect

> > > > of

> > > > > > > > shubha

> > > > > > > > > grahas on the karakamsha and Lagnamsha which should

> also

> > > be

> > > > > > > > tenanted by

> > > > > > > > > Shubha grahas, leaving no doubt as to where the

> aspects

> > > are

> > > > to

> > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > seen.

> > > > > > > > > And for the record the translation to that effect is

> by

> > > an

> > > > > > eminent

> > > > > > > > > astrologer who was Professor of astrology in Banaras

> > > Hindu

> > > > > > > > University.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Lagna as a bindu was mentioned for driving home the

> > > > shadvarga

> > > > > > > > > > calculations,if any members were having doubts.For

> > > > shadvarga

> > > > > > > > > > calculation of planets too we need the bindu or

> degree

> > > of

> > > > a

> > > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > > > within a rashi, as you are aware.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > We have to look at Rashis.This is so because Rashi

> > > (one 30

> > > > > > degree

> > > > > > > > > > sector ) is the first varga.As this Varga is

> > > synonymous

> > > > with

> > > > > > Bhava

> > > > > > > > > > houses are analysed w.r to Rashis.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > If lagna is a bindu a you propose, and nothing

> more,

> > > > then

> > > > > > how

> > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > > indicate an entire rasi? Now if this is correct,

> and

> > > > > > technically

> > > > > > > > > > it is,

> > > > > > > > > > > then by your reckoning there is no need to look at

> > > rasis

> > > > > > too. Is

> > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > what you mean to say?

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > If shadvargas are not related to the portion

> falling

> > > in

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > lagna

> > > > > > > > > > rasis,

> > > > > > > > > > > which holds the degree of lagna Madhya, then it

> > > appears

> > > > we

> > > > > > must

> > > > > > > > ask

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > sages to redefine Vargas. I doubt they need our

> > > advise.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > There was a purpose.I just wanted to explain it

> to

> > > the

> > > > > > > > members if

> > > > > > > > > > > > some of them are not sure on what shadvarga of

> > > lagna

> > > > is

> > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > how it

> > > > > > > > > > > > is calculated.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > As you have said Vargas are divisions of a

> > > rashi.But

> > > > > > > > shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna is not the Vargas falling in Lagna.Here

> > > lagna is

> > > > > > not a

> > > > > > > > > > > > rashi,but a bindu.Vargas are found from a

> > > degree.The

> > > > > > degree

> > > > > > > > of a

> > > > > > > > > > > > planet or degree of lagna.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > As you may know we do notneed six charts to

> > > dtermine

> > > > > > > > shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > > > lagna.All we need is the degree of lagna and the

> > > rashi

> > > > > > rising.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Let us take an example.Lagna is at 11 degrees in

> > > > dhanu.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Let us find the shadvargas of Lagna with th help

> > > of

> > > > rising

> > > > > > > > rashi

> > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > degree.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > 1st Varga - The Rashi in which Lagna bindu is

> > > > falling -

> > > > > > Dhanu

> > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd Varga - The Hora in which Lagna bindu is

> > > falling -

> > > > As

> > > > > > 11

> > > > > > > > > > degrees

> > > > > > > > > > > > falls in the 1st half of dhanu - Surya Hora

> > > > > > > > > > > > 3rd Varga - The drekkana in which Lagna bindu is

> > > > falling -

> > > > > > As

> > > > > > > > 11

> > > > > > > > > > > > degrees falls in the 2nd 1/3rd of dhanu -

> Drekkana

> > > is

> > > > > > Mesha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > 4th Varga - As 11 degrees falls in the 3rd

> > > > > > saptamsha ,Lagna

> > > > > > > > > > saptamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > is Kumbha.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Similraly - Lagna navamsha is Karka,Lagna

> > > Trimshamsha

> > > > is

> > > > > > > > dhanu.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Thus the purpose of whole exercise was to say

> that

> > > > when

> > > > > > we say

> > > > > > > > > > > > shadvargas of Lagna or Mars,it does not mean the

> > > > rashis

> > > > > > owned

> > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna or Mars.But the Rashis on towhich they are

> > > > > > placed,having

> > > > > > > > > > > > hora,drekkana etc etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas of Mars in the 2nd Rashi from karakamsha

> > > too

> > > > is no

> > > > > > > > > > differet.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > There are many meanings,that is why Rashi is

> > > called as

> > > > > > > > > > > > Kshethra /Riksha /havana etc.But i don't think

> > > sage

> > > > will

> > > > > > use

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > saword to represent something belonging to same

> > > class.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > For example sage will not use ''sva'' to mean

> 2nd

> > > as

> > > > well

> > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > 3rd.Then

> > > > > > > > > > > > we cannot interpret.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly Rashi and navamsha will not be

> > > represented

> > > > > > using the

> > > > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > > word.Rashi/Kshethra/Riksha/Bhvana/Lagna etc are

> > > > synonyms

> > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > ifthey

> > > > > > > > > > > > are used for navamsha then what is the whole

> > > purpose

> > > > > > behind

> > > > > > > > > > defintion.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand sva was used for iems from

> > > different

> > > > > > > > classes.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > This wasin mind while making such a statement.I

> > > will

> > > > try

> > > > > > my

> > > > > > > > best

> > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > polish my style of writing.I accept my

> limitations

> > > in

> > > > > > writing.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I have not understood your question or the

> > > intent

> > > > behind

> > > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas are divisions, within a rasi, ruled by

> > > > different

> > > > > > > > grahas.

> > > > > > > > > > So

> > > > > > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > one wants t look at Vargas falling in lagna

> the

> > > shad

> > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > will

> > > > > > > > > > > > mean

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the rasi equivalent occurring at lagna

> position

> > > in

> > > > the 6

> > > > > > > > > > divisional

> > > > > > > > > > > > > charts of Rashi, Hora, Dreshkana, Navamsha,

> > > > > > Dwaadashamsha

> > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamsha. Or at least this is what I have

> > > learnt.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sages did not use words in vain or context. I

> > > > agree. But

> > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > mean they used the words to mean only one

> thing

> > > > always.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I never said that the meaning can be changed

> to

> > > > suit our

> > > > > > > > > > > > convenience and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I would request you not to attribute such

> > > > sentiments to

> > > > > > me.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > However I do say that word are used in

> different

> > > > > > contexts to

> > > > > > > > > > mean

> > > > > > > > > > > > > different things, especially in Sanskrit

> texts of

> > > > > > Jyotish. I

> > > > > > > > > > have,

> > > > > > > > > > > > just

> > > > > > > > > > > > > a few minutes back use of " Sva " with different

> > > > meaning

> > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > > > > places by Varaha Mihira to you. I hope you do

> > > not

> > > > also

> > > > > > > > attribute

> > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > words that you attributed to me to the

> venerated

> > > > Varaha

> > > > > > > > Mihira.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar,.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pls tell me what you mean by shadvargas of

> > > > lagna.How

> > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > find

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > them.Do you go by ownership or placement

> > > > > > > > > > > > (Rashi/navamsha/dwadshamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc).

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are shlokas in Varahamihiras text

> which

> > > > > > > > says ,Okarkshe

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Purushamshakae.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which means in Ojarashi and Oja amsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > As per me sages will not use any words out

> of

> > > > > > context.If

> > > > > > > > he

> > > > > > > > > > wants

> > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > say amsha he will mention it.He will not use

> > > > Rashi to

> > > > > > > > mean as

> > > > > > > > > > > > amsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ojarkshe is Oja Rashi.Similarly Paparkshe is

> > > Papa

> > > > > > Rashi.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you want to say as per our conveninece we

> > > can

> > > > > > change

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of riksha/rashi/bhavana/bhavas as navamsha

> > > then i

> > > > > > cannot

> > > > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > anything.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can only respect your views.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will tell you why that happens. You

> begin

> > > with

> > > > > > quoting

> > > > > > > > > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then give a sutra from Jaimini as being

> said

> > > by

> > > > > > > > Parashara.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Interpretation of sutras is not the

> easiest

> > > of

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > things,

> > > > > > > > > > more

> > > > > > > > > > > > so

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jaimini's Upadesha sutras. That the sutras

> > > use

> > > > > > > > KaTaPaYaadi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > encryption

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > makes them even more difficult to

> interpret.

> > > I

> > > > am

> > > > > > sure

> > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > noticed

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this when Sreenadh interpreted the

> > > KaTaPaYaadi

> > > > > > Varga in

> > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > wrong

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > fashion.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then there is your insistence to let

> Sanskrit

> > > > > > grammar

> > > > > > > > give

> > > > > > > > > > a go

> > > > > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that can make interpretation of a shloka

> or

> > > > sutra

> > > > > > fit

> > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposition.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any of the Shodasha Vargas of a rasi can

> be

> > > > > > referred to

> > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > Varga,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > but as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far as I know in astrology, when one talks

> > > of

> > > > Varga,

> > > > > > > > without

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > qualifying

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it, or Amshas that generally refers to

> > > navamsha

> > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dwadashaamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another reason that we can not agree, or

> > > seem to

> > > > > > agree,

> > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > you are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reluctant to call a navamsha by the

> > > nomenclature

> > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > rasi.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > This

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > makes it difficult to convey what I mean

> to

> > > say

> > > > in

> > > > > > > > English

> > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the language of the net and which both of

> us

> > > > know.

> > > > > > Now

> > > > > > > > > > since you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > do not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > want to use the word Mesha navamsha as

> Mesha

> > > is

> > > > a

> > > > > > rashi

> > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > logic it can not be a navamsha, it becomes

> > > > > > difficult to

> > > > > > > > > > convey

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > what I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understand by the texts.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will like to draw your attention to the

> > > > literal

> > > > > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi. It means a heap and nothing more. In

> > > > astrology

> > > > > > > > since

> > > > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > encompasses many stars that make up a

> > > nakshatra

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > 1/12th

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > division of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the zodiac is called a Rasi. Or at least

> > > this

> > > > is my

> > > > > > > > > > > > understanding

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason of using the word rasi for the

> 1/12th

> > > > > > division

> > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > zodiac.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not agree that by Chandra in Guru

> Varga

> > > it

> > > > is

> > > > > > meant

> > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandra is being seen. To me we are

> talking

> > > > about is

> > > > > > > > whether

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandra is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > falling in the Varga of Guru in which ever

> > > rasi

> > > > he

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > occupying.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > So in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Navamsha we see whether Chandra is

> occupying

> > > > Pisces

> > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > Sagittarius

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > navamsha. I also do not agree that there

> are

> > > > Vargas

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > Chandra

> > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of any

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > planet for that matter. The 16 Vargas that

> > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > talks

> > > > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that of a Rasi, beginning from the Rashi

> > > itself.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the Vargas are not owned by different

> > > > planets,

> > > > > > pray

> > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the sage

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tell us to see occupation of a friend, own

> > > etc.

> > > > > > Varga to

> > > > > > > > > > assess

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > strength of a planet in the Varga

> concerned?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have interacted with many astrologers of

> > > > > > yesteryears

> > > > > > > > (with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > respect to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > my age group) and have never found them

> > > > claiming the

> > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only lagna and planets.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you insist that sage Parashara gave the

> > > SU.

> > > > 52.-

> > > > > > > > " Tatra

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > bhrigwongaraka

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > varge paradarikaha " , perhaps you are

> > > referring

> > > > to

> > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > edition

> > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > BPHS

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that I do not have. However I do have that

> > > in

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > umpteen

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > texts on Jaimini that I do have in my

> > > library.

> > > > And

> > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > way,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > scholars have interpreted that to mean 9th

> > > from

> > > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the 2nd.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not agree that a graha can

> > > simultaneously

> > > > > > occupy

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars, simultaneously, as is

> being

> > > > > > suggested

> > > > > > > > > > whether in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in any of the Vargas. It could only occupy

> > > one

> > > > or

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > other.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have seen you arguing in favor of

> looking

> > > at

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > Shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grahas Venus and Mars. I would like you to

> > > look

> > > > at

> > > > > > all

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > six

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > charts

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whose Vargas together are referred as

> > > > Shadvargas and

> > > > > > > > try to

> > > > > > > > > > find

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > out

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whether they do indeed contain the 6

> Vargas

> > > of

> > > > Venus

> > > > > > > > and 6

> > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars. I am sure that you will find them to

> > > > contain

> > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > 5

> > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > each of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the grahas. Once you confirm this by

> looking

> > > at

> > > > the

> > > > > > 6

> > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > self,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tell me how one can look at Shadvargas of

> > > Venus

> > > > or

> > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested to be the interpretation of the

> > > sutra

> > > > that

> > > > > > > > you are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > referring to.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You may also be interested to know that

> > > > Parashara

> > > > > > talks

> > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > AK

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > falling in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Varga of Chandra, Mars or Venus also

> > > having

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > roving

> > > > > > > > > > eye

> > > > > > > > > > > > on

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > others

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wives. So the combination of Venus and

> Mars

> > > > being

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > giving

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the roving eye for other's wives, that you

> > > are

> > > > > > > > advancing as

> > > > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > standalone

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > principle, may not, necessarily, be the

> way

> > > the

> > > > sage

> > > > > > > > looked

> > > > > > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > their

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > interpretation.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Those were written by me.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am very dissappointed to see

> > > that ,inspite

> > > > of

> > > > > > > > repeating

> > > > > > > > > > > > numerus

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > times,you are unable to get what i am

> > > saying.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not talking about rashis lorded by

> > > > shukra or

> > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > here.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > am

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > talking about the shadvargas vargas of

> > > mars

> > > > and

> > > > > > > > shukra.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pls tell me what is the meaning of

> > > shadvargas

> > > > or

> > > > > > > > simply

> > > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lagna.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the rashi in which lagna is

> > > placed.The

> > > > > > > > navamshaka of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna,Trimshamshaka of Lagna etc.Can we

> > > see

> > > > any

> > > > > > > > lordship

> > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > say.Lagna does not own any rashi.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly when we say vargas of Venus -

> It

> > > > means

> > > > > > Rashi

> > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > Venus,Hora,navamshaka,drekkana,trimshamshaka

> > > > etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shadvarga is never the rashi owned by a

> > > > > > planet.Then

> > > > > > > > Lagna

> > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > never

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have shadvarga.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say,Chandra in

> Guru

> > > > > > Varga - We

> > > > > > > > > > are not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > seeing

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the shadvarga of Guru,but that of

> > > chandra.Is

> > > > > > chandra

> > > > > > > > > > placed in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guru

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rashi?Is Chandra navamshaka in Guru

> > > Rashi.Is

> > > > > > Chandra

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamshaka in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guru Rashi etc is what we check.If so

> > > chandras

> > > > > > vargas

> > > > > > > > > > fall in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > guru

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashis or we say chandra is in

> guruvargas.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the same reason schoplars of

> > > yesteryears

> > > > > > always

> > > > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for our natal Lagna and Planets.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand you are taking them as

> > > > owned by

> > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > > planet.Every

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > shadvarga that derive is like that.You

> may

> > > > check

> > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > shri

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Narasimha,how he is deriving it for his

> > > > software.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the same reason Bhrigu and Angara

> can

> > > have

> > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > together

> > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rashi which is 2nd from Karakamsha.Sage

> > > > clearly

> > > > > > talks

> > > > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vargas from both.Moreover the next

> shloka

> > > is

> > > > > > talking

> > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus together or aspecting the 2nd from

> > > > > > karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we go by your

> > > > explanation,we

> > > > > > > > have to

> > > > > > > > > > opt

> > > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just one among shukra or Mars which is

> not

> > > > > > > > proper.Their

> > > > > > > > > > Joint

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > influence creates sexual drive.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I request you to kindly read this with

> > > care.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rspect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The below remarks are not from my mail

> > > at

> > > > all.

> > > > > > I do

> > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > know

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think I would write that. I am sure

> you

> > > know

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > my

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > style

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of writing at all.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " >From my experience -Mars + Venus

> > > creates

> > > > > > certin

> > > > > > > > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why

> are

> > > you

> > > > > > going

> > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > owned by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just one of them and that too without

> a

> > > > > > planetary

> > > > > > > > link

> > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > really

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > worrying me.Shri Rath has translated

> so,i

> > > > > > agree.But

> > > > > > > > i

> > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will

> > > definitely

> > > > > > correct

> > > > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > benfit

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of jyotish community. "

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As to why I said they could not be

> > > having

> > > > their

> > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > together in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi or Bhava does not need any deeper

> > > > > > explanation.

> > > > > > > > If

> > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > looking

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at the 2nd from Karakamsha in the rasi

> > > > chart,

> > > > > > as you

> > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > right, you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > could not have both Mesha and

> Vrishabha

> > > or

> > > > Tula

> > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > Vrishchika

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd from the Karakamsha, is that not

> so?

> > > > > > Similarly

> > > > > > > > if in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the 2nd from Karakamsha is to be seen,

> > > the

> > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > > could be

> > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > navamshas.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I though you meant so.Because in

> > > > subsequent

> > > > > > lines

> > > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > see

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and Karakamsha being used for the

> same

> > > > > > > > purpose.But if

> > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there are other places where swamsha

> > > is

> > > > used

> > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagnamsha ,then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i can trust you if you can point me

> to

> > > > that.

> > > > > > This

> > > > > > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > be a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problem and in no way it will affect

> > > us.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars can ofcourse have

> their

> > > > Vargas

> > > > > > in a

> > > > > > > > > > single

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashi or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bhava.Venus can have navamsha

> > > there,Mars

> > > > can

> > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there,Venus can have Trimshamsha

> > > > there,Mars

> > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there,they both can have drekkana

> > > there

> > > > etc

> > > > > > etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus sage is talking about Bhrigu

> and

> > > > Angara

> > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > (as

> > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > identified gramattically) having

> varga

> > > > there

> > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > it is

> > > > > > > > > > > > very

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > much

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you note the next line -Sage is

> > > talking

> > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > > Venus

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > joining or aspecting the 2nd from

> > > > Karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From my experience -Mars + Venus

> > > creates

> > > > > > certin

> > > > > > > > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why

> > > are

> > > > you

> > > > > > going

> > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > owned by just one of them and that

> too

> > > > > > without a

> > > > > > > > > > planetary

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > link is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really worrying me.Shri Rath has

> > > > translated

> > > > > > so,i

> > > > > > > > > > > > agree.But i

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will

> > > > definitely

> > > > > > > > correct

> > > > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > benfit of jyotish community.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am surprised as to why you say

> > > so.That

> > > > they

> > > > > > > > cannot

> > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > together.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pardeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > > 40>,

> > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have never said that I do not

> > > think

> > > > that

> > > > > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different where the context

> demands

> > > so.

> > > > At

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > > time I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammar can be put to rest to in

> the

> > > > name of

> > > > > > > > > > context,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > without

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sound

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course if you want contextual

> > > > translation

> > > > > > > > only,

> > > > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > one can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > certainly say that the " Meshadi

> > > raashige

> > > > > > > > swaamshe "

> > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > always be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > translated as " Falling in Mesha

> > > > navamsha in

> > > > > > > > Mesha

> > > > > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc. " .

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way " Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka

> > > > Varge " ,

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mention, does

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean varga of both Venus and mars,

> > > but

> > > > of

> > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > Venus OR

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > due to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the grammar only. varga of two

> > > planets

> > > > can

> > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > fall

> > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bhava/amsha/rasi whether in rasi

> or

> > > > > > Navamsha or

> > > > > > > > any

> > > > > > > > > > > > other

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Grammatically,what you are

> saying

> > > is

> > > > also

> > > > > > > > true.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But Jyotish defintions play a

> > > > preceding

> > > > > > role

> > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > choosing

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammatical meaning.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example one meaning of

> > > > labhe ,Swamshe

> > > > > > etc

> > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 11th

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But if we go by that we will

> > > > definitely

> > > > > > > > translate

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamshe in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > meshadi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashige as ''in

> Swamsha'',thereby

> > > > > > translating

> > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > full

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart.This as you too agree,then

> > > > cannot

> > > > > > pass

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > test,of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > subsequent shlokas.I understand

> > > gladly

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > too

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > agree that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha and karakamsha are the

> > > same.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So the context decides

> > > plural/singular

> > > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > necessarily

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the ''E''

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as you have rightly mentioned.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But in essence what i want to

> say

> > > > is ''E''

> > > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > always

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean ''in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the'' as you have

> > > > interpreted.Labheshe is

> > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > example.Karake

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus it can very well mean

> Varga of

> > > > > > Shukra and

> > > > > > > > > > Mars-

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > which can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > six vargas or one varga.(Not

> > > lordship)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra -(There) In the second

> from

> > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga or Vargas of Venus and

> Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now why should we need two

> > > > qualifiesrs for

> > > > > > > > > > destination

> > > > > > > > > > > > (1)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from karakamsha 2)in the vargas

> > > of?)-

> > > > if

> > > > > > we had

> > > > > > > > > > another

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your interpretation is

> right.That

> > > > planet

> > > > > > will

> > > > > > > > > > answer

> > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > question -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who is in the vargas of ?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly - Swamshad dhane

> Shukrar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Swamshad dhane is already

> pointing

> > > to

> > > > > > > > destination-

> > > > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > need

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > another ''in the'' vargas of.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say in

> the

> > > 2nd

> > > > > > from

> > > > > > > > > > > > karakamsha if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mars and venus are present,it

> fits

> > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammatically.Moreover

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i had

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentioned rashi lordship without

> > > > planetary

> > > > > > > > link

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (placement/amsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is too general.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In

> > >

> <%40> <%

> 40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> 40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > > > 40>,

> > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I may be wrong but the " E " by

> > > itself

> > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > point

> > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > word Shadvarga indicating 6

> > > Vargas

> > > > that

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > group

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (though it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more than one unit) and

> > > so " Varge " ,

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > singular is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " E " means " in " . I would be

> happy

> > > if

> > > > an

> > > > > > > > example

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of " Varge "

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plural

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can be given.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not at all think that

> > > Vargaka

> > > > or

> > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > singular and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargake

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge is plural, at all. Both

> the

> > > > > > manner of

> > > > > > > > > > using

> > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > indicates singular. it is no

> use

> > > > > > projecting

> > > > > > > > > > what is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > clearly

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saptami

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vibhakti and singular as

> being a

> > > > plural

> > > > > > > > word. If

> > > > > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dvivachana it may

> > > become " VargyoH "

> > > > > > > > or " VargeSu "

> > > > > > > > > > (for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bahuvachan)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge. Perhaps some Sanskrit

> > > > scholar on

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > list

> > > > > > > > > > > > would

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > like

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > comment

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on this.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, much as I would like it to

> > > > resolve,

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > issue

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > remains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unresolved.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will give you a relevant

> > > > example to

> > > > > > > > explain

> > > > > > > > > > how

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > VarGE

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > context of plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna Shad-VargaKE - Is

> > > pointing

> > > > to

> > > > > > all

> > > > > > > > > > vargas -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plural.You

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > may

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > note

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that the grammatical ending

> is

> > > > > > with ''E''

> > > > > > > > > > showing

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > plurals

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expressed with such an

> ending.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now from Vrishamsha''Ka''

> and

> > > > Tulamsha

> > > > > > > > > > example we

> > > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > conclude

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VargaKA and VarGA can be

> used

> > > for

> > > > the

> > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > > purpose in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ekavachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > singular form and VargaKE

> and

> > > > VarGE

> > > > > > can be

> > > > > > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bahuvachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plural form.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope this may help us in

> > > > resolving

> > > > > > our

> > > > > > > > > > issue.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------

> ---

> > > ---

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this

> incoming

> > > > > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus

> > > Database:

> > > > > > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this

> > > message

> > > > have

> > > > > > been

> > > > > > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------

> ---

> > > ---

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

> > > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus

> Database:

> > > > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message

> > > have

> > > > been

> > > > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---

> ---

> > > ---

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

> > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message

> have

> > > been

> > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------

> ---

> > > ---

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have

> been

> > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----------

> ---

> > > ---

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------

> ---

> > > ---

> > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> 269.10.2/890 -

> > > > Release

> > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > -------------------

> ---

> > > ---

> > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/890 -

> > > Release

> > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandrashekhar,

 

I haven't noticed that, on other lists. This list was was badly spammed, with

number of non-jyotish posts, unfortunatelly, which I don't consider as

'activity' at all!

Warmest wishes,

Anna

 

 

Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

Dear Pradeep,

 

If you think " ca " does not mean AND, in Sanskrit then there may not be

any point in discussing this any further. And if translations of all

other learned scholars are to be rejected in favour of Dashaadhyaayi,

then there is no use discussing what Parashara said too as Dashaadhyaayi

is a commentary on Brihat jataka.

 

Personally, I do not think that only Dashaadhyaayi encompasses all the

vedic astrological knowledge though it is one amongst the respected texts.

 

Chandrashekhar.

 

vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>

> If you remember our first discussion,which is present in the

> archives,you were only mentioning about shukra and saturn in

> paraspara amsha and aspecting each other.You had added that these are

> aspects in Trimshamsha chakra.

>

> I had then quoted the second line which points to Lagna being that of

> Shukra and its navamsha in ghata rashi.

>

> For which your reply was we are looking into different texts.

>

> You have only quoted the 2nd line from Saravali.

>

> The full shloka in Saravali is as follows -

> Shukra Sithau yadi paraspara bhaga samsthau

> shaukre cha drishti pathagavudaye ghatamshe

>

> Thus the first line does not contain any aspect mentioned.How can we

> say that the first line is stand alone.Do you say if Shukra and

> Saturn are in each others amsha a lady will behave like this.

> The second line makes it complete.The lagna should be that of

> shukra,saturn and venus should aspect each other,and lagnamsha should

> fall in Ghatamsha.

>

> Thus Dashadhyayi kara is crystal clear on what Saravali is

> saying.Atleast for this shloka i feel there is no ambiguity needed.

>

> Respect

> Pradeep

>

> Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > If Dashaadhyaayi thinks Saravali is a standard text to rely upon (

> as

> > you have quoted a reference therein quoting Saravali to support

> some

> > interpretation) why say that other concepts in Saravali are wrong?

> > Saravali says " Shaukre ca drishtipathagaavudaye ghataamshe " etc.

> > indicating the necessity of exchange of amshas and mutual aspect

> between

> > Shukra and Shani as concurrent condition for the first yoga to

> fructify.

> > And then goes on to say that if for a lagna having rasi of Shukra

> and

> > navamsha of Shani similar results would ensue. GhataaMshe has been

> > interpreted as the amsha of Shani and not merely amsha of Kumbha by

> many

> > translators.

> >

> > I can not comment on the interpretation of Dashaadhyaayikar of the

> > shloka but the shloka from Brihat Jataka that I have also says

> > " driksamsthaavasitasito parasparaamshe shoke vaa yadi ghata

> > raashisambhavoMshaH. " followed by the next line that I did not find

> > necessary to quote as it does not talk about the yoga but only the

> > results, which you have already quoted and I felt may not be

> necessary

> > to post on line.

> >

> > That there are two distinct yogas is also not new to translators of

> > Brihat jataka. Since you accept that the first line does say about

> > occupation of each others amsha AND aspect on each other is indeed

> > covered in the first line, the reluctance to accept aspects in

> specific

> > cases is something that I am not able to understand.

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > I can clearly understand your position.Especially as you have

> > > said,the texts that we are referring to are different.Here comes

> the

> > > importance of Dashadhyayi.After my explanation you can also see

> that

> > > it is not only dashadhyayi ,but Saravali as well is having the

> same

> > > opinion on the shloka explained below.

> > >

> > > As i have mentioned yesterday,dashadhyayi is not covering just the

> > > first 10 chapters as the name suggests.For example let me take a

> > > chapter towards the end ,chapter 22-Sthree Jataka Adhyaya.

> > >

> > > Thalakkulathu Govinda Bhattathiri has given interpretations,for

> all

> > > the shlokas from 1 through 16,except shloka 13, while interpreting

> > > chapters 1 through 10. Shloka 13 as you can see is pretty straight

> > > forward.

> > >

> > > Now let us take the shloka which as per you is referring

> > > to ''Trimshamsha Chakra'' with aspects therein.Firstly the results

> > > for planets being placed in rashis belonging to Mesha onwards,and

> > > within that Trimshamshas belonging to Mars onwards is explained

> and

> > > ends by shloka 6.

> > >

> > > Now let us take

> > >

> > > ''Driksamstha VasithaSithau Parasparamshe

> > > Shaukre Va yadi Ghata Rashi Sambhavomsha''

> > > Next 2 lines explains the result.

> > >

> > > As per you,there is only a reference regarding Venus and Saturn

> > > aspecting each other and also in each others Amsha.This is covered

> > > in the first line.My worry is where has the second line gone in

> the

> > > text that you are having.Either it was not interpreted or it was

> > > inadvertently got missed out from printing.

> > >

> > > Now Dashadhyayi says -

> > >

> > > Driksamsthau ithyadi Yoga dvayam - Two Yogas.First one is

> > > corresponding to the first line as we have seen.

> > >

> > > Shaukre Rashau Yadi Kumbhamshe Udethi ..Thatha dvitheeyam - the

> > > second.Meaning ,The Ascendant should be either Tula or Vrishabha

> and

> > > it should have Kumbhamsha(Kumbha is Ghata - Ghata Rashi

> > > Sambhavomsha).

> > >

> > > Now the author says, as per some these two can be taken as one

> yoga

> > > as well(Saravali too says so).

> > >

> > > Parasparamshagatha Vasitha Sithou Paraspara Drishtau Shaukre

> > > Rashavudayathi Kumbhamshakashcha Bhavathi Yadee - then the

> > > result.And the author says -T hatha Cha Saravalyam.And quotes

> > > corresponding shloka from Saravali,where again the said line is

> > > present(sanskrit).Thus it says - For a Lady to have such a strong

> > > sexual desire - Purusha Veshadhari(One dressign up as a man -thus

> > > lesbian),her ascendant should belong to Venus and the amsha of her

> > > ascendant should fall in Kumbha Rashi,and in her chart Saturn and

> > > Venus should aspect each other and also have exchange of amshas.

> > >

> > > Thus you see,in either case there is a line which is missing in

> your

> > > book,which helps us to understand that it is not a varga chakra.I

> > > dont know how it happened.

> > >

> > > Thus if Dashadhyayi was not there,then i would have also not got

> any

> > > opportunity to understand this in such detail.This is the beauty

> of

> > > this text and as you know without any value ParashnaMarga will not

> > > praise it with such a high regard.The rest of the text is great

> and

> > > explains every concept with authority,quoting many sources.

> > >

> > > I consider you with great regard(Gurusthana) and holds respect

> > > towards your views and analysis.You may kindly understand that,i

> > > will not misquote and misrepresent,especially when the subject is

> > > Jyotish.If some others in this list is having mistrust,they should

> > > understand that i am not the only keralite living in this universe

> > > and they can seek help from others to see if i am cheating.I have

> no

> > > hatred towards their words.If it brings happiness to them let them

> > > continue with false allegations.

> > >

> > > I will prepare the paper and then would request your good self to

> > > review.I am so thankful that you have tested me with tough

> questions

> > > and logic,which has helped me to learn more.

> > >

> > > Respect

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > >

> > > > Purna drishte Purna Yogam Ardha Drishte ardhameva cha

> > > > Pada drishte Padayogamiti gyeyam kramat phalam.

> > > >

> > > > Is mentioned and hence the aspects are not about Rashi drishti.

> > > >

> > > > Now as i have mentioned in the past,though the name is

> > > > dashadhyayi,the author covers shlokas,from most of the chapters

> as

> > > > and when he finds some interrelationship or link.This i consider

> > > as a

> > > > real blessing.Now how amshakas are interpreted,has been

> > > > demonstrated ,for numerous contexts,and thus forming a guideline

> > > for

> > > > other shloka interpretations.

> > > >

> > > > I will see the shlokas,and will write back.

> > > >

> > > > Respect

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > Transits are to be seen no doubt from the rasis synonymous to

> > > the

> > > > > navamsha rasis, but when it is sphuta it is of the navamshesha

> > > and

> > > > not

> > > > > the rasis. There is a difference between the two.

> > > > >

> > > > > I have already said I do not consider aspects in D-charts,

> > > unless

> > > > > specifically mentioned in some yogas, and also that barring

> > > > navamsha

> > > > > charts, in other varga charts I look at rashi aspects. That

> does

> > > > not

> > > > > mean I should close my eyes to what is written in other

> > > respected

> > > > texts.

> > > > > That only means I look at charts from a different angle.

> > > > >

> > > > > There is nothing in the lagna shadvargake shloka to indicate

> > > graded

> > > > > aspects and so it does not rule out rashi drishti at all. Ans

> > > since

> > > > you

> > > > > have quoted both Parashara and Jaimini you should know that

> > > rashi

> > > > > drishtis are valid in Parashara too and exclusively so in

> > > Jaimini.

> > > > >

> > > > > Your translation and mine of the shlokas differ and that is

> why

> > > > there is

> > > > > no agreement. If you expect Dashaadhyaayi to give divisional

> > > charts

> > > > and

> > > > > their interpretations, that is not possible as Varaha Mihira

> on

> > > > whose

> > > > > work it is only a commentary does not speak of it and it is

> > > > commentary

> > > > > on only 10 of the 18 adhayaayas of Brihat jataka. If you read

> > > > Brihat

> > > > > jataka carefully, you will see reference o aspects in

> > > Trimshamsha

> > > > there.

> > > > > Since you have many times claimed superiority of Dashaadhyaayi

> > > over

> > > > many

> > > > > of the more ancient and respected classics, I find it strange

> as

> > > to

> > > > why

> > > > > you do not want to accept what is said in the original text on

> > > > which

> > > > > Dashaadhyaayi is only a commentary and that too on 10

> adhyaayas

> > > as

> > > > the

> > > > > name suggests (that does not, of course, make it any less

> > > > respectable).

> > > > > There are many references to planets being placed in a

> navamsha,

> > > > which

> > > > > is not identical with the rasi whose name the navamsha enjoys,

> > > and

> > > > the

> > > > > results from them in the 21st adhyaaya. How do you map back

> such

> > > a

> > > > > navamsha to the rasi and what should be the logic? You also

> see

> > > > > reference to Guru occupying own Trimshamsha, irrespective of

> > > rasi

> > > > in the

> > > > > same adhayaaya. There are too many references like this to

> > > question

> > > > the

> > > > > theory that the amshas need always be mapped back to identical

> > > rasi

> > > > in

> > > > > rasi chart.

> > > > >

> > > > > Could you tell why this reluctance to accept Varaha Mihira?

> > > > >

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Meshamshe, Vrishamshe Transit results can be seen from Mesha

> > > and

> > > > > > Vrishabha rashis.Thus you are aware of what i am

> > > saying.Moreover

> > > > we

> > > > > > have seen paparkshe.we have seen meshadi rashige swamshe.we

> > > have

> > > > seen

> > > > > > that bhrigwonkaraka varge ,as per your understanding cannot

> > > > satisfy

> > > > > > both mars and venus.The very next shloka is talking about

> mars

> > > and

> > > > > > venus yuti or aspecting.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Now we can forget all these as you are not williing to

> accept

> > > > > > rashi,riksha etc as valid reasoning.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > We have seen Lagna shadvargake shloka with aspectual

> > > > grades,proving

> > > > > > that they ae not rashi drishtis.Couple of days back and many

> > > > times in

> > > > > > the past,i have heard from you that you don't support

> aspects

> > > in

> > > > > > Vargas.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If you still have the sam views,then to understand

> shadvargake

> > > > > > shloka,we have to see planets aspecting lagna in ''six

> > > charts''.As

> > > > > > lagna can fall in any rashi,you have to accept aspects fully

> > > in

> > > > all

> > > > > > Varga charts.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > This is relevant to our discussion as lagnamsha is also

> part of

> > > > > > shadvargas of lagna.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As you are aware ,the BPHS translator too has expressed his

> > > > concern.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > How could I think shadvarga of lagna is shadvarga of

> rashi?

> > > > Lagna

> > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > point on the eastern horizon at the time of birth of a

> > > jataka.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > There is no dispute about what is lagnamsha and what is

> > > > karakamsha

> > > > > > at

> > > > > > > all. At the same time when reference is to a graha

> falling in

> > > > > > Lagnamsha

> > > > > > > it refers to the navamsha rasi (or sector ruled by one of

> > > the

> > > > rasis

> > > > > > of a

> > > > > > > planet, barring Sun and Chandra if you like it that way)

> in

> > > > which

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > lagnamsha falls. Now that being so where is the shubha

> graha

> > > > > > supposed to

> > > > > > > fall in the shloka I quoted? Same with the Shubh graha in

> > > > > > Karakamsha and

> > > > > > > needing drishti of shubha graha on it. It is easy to say

> that

> > > > > > these

> > > > > > > need to be seen in rasi, but for lack of the reference to

> > > rasi,

> > > > > > there,

> > > > > > > there is no reason to assume that it does not refer to

> > > navamsha

> > > > > > rasi.

> > > > > > > The reference to grahas in " Meshaamshe " , " Vrishabhaamshe "

> > > etc

> > > > are

> > > > > > quite

> > > > > > > clear, in BPHS.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Of course Yes,you are correct.Varga is found for this

> > > bindu

> > > > and in

> > > > > > > > the case of planets their degree decides.The rest you

> have

> > > > stated

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > also as per definition.My point was made under the

> > > impression

> > > > that

> > > > > > > > you have a view that,shadvarga of Lagna is shadvarga of

> a

> > > > > > rashi.If so

> > > > > > > > it is not.Shad varga is found for Lagna bindu.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > The full Rashi/Kshethra in which Lagna bindu falls

> becomes

> > > its

> > > > > > first

> > > > > > > > Varga.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > The Translation is entiterely correct and no one can

> > > > > > contradict.This

> > > > > > > > is similar to one planet aspecting shadvargas of lagna.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Lagnamsha is already covered in the shadvargas of

> > > > > > lagna.Karakamsha is

> > > > > > > > similar too.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Now let us see it on a chart.Karkamasha is in

> > > Dhanu.Jupiter is

> > > > > > placed

> > > > > > > > in Mithuna Rashi.Shubha graha is aspecting Karakamsha

> Lagna

> > > > > > > > (Rashi).Similarly Lagnamsha.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > You are already aware of the rules for aspects.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I see your point of view. anyway even within

> shadvargas

> > > we

> > > > look

> > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > degree of a planet falling within a certain span of

> > > degrees

> > > > and

> > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > particular bindu.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I agree that rashi is a Varga and my question is if

> one

> > > can

> > > > > > look at

> > > > > > > > > aspects in one Varga why not in other Vargas? I am

> sure

> > > you

> > > > know

> > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > personally I use navamsha to find only the strength of

> > > > grahas,

> > > > > > but

> > > > > > > > there

> > > > > > > > > is no reason to rule out aspects in Navamshas or other

> > > > charts

> > > > > > > > totally.

> > > > > > > > > One of the raj yogas mentioned by Parashara talks of

> > > aspect

> > > > of

> > > > > > > > shubha

> > > > > > > > > grahas on the karakamsha and Lagnamsha which should

> also

> > > be

> > > > > > > > tenanted by

> > > > > > > > > Shubha grahas, leaving no doubt as to where the

> aspects

> > > are

> > > > to

> > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > seen.

> > > > > > > > > And for the record the translation to that effect is

> by

> > > an

> > > > > > eminent

> > > > > > > > > astrologer who was Professor of astrology in Banaras

> > > Hindu

> > > > > > > > University.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Lagna as a bindu was mentioned for driving home the

> > > > shadvarga

> > > > > > > > > > calculations,if any members were having doubts.For

> > > > shadvarga

> > > > > > > > > > calculation of planets too we need the bindu or

> degree

> > > of

> > > > a

> > > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > > > within a rashi, as you are aware.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > We have to look at Rashis.This is so because Rashi

> > > (one 30

> > > > > > degree

> > > > > > > > > > sector ) is the first varga.As this Varga is

> > > synonymous

> > > > with

> > > > > > Bhava

> > > > > > > > > > houses are analysed w.r to Rashis.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > If lagna is a bindu a you propose, and nothing

> more,

> > > > then

> > > > > > how

> > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > > indicate an entire rasi? Now if this is correct,

> and

> > > > > > technically

> > > > > > > > > > it is,

> > > > > > > > > > > then by your reckoning there is no need to look at

> > > rasis

> > > > > > too. Is

> > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > what you mean to say?

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > If shadvargas are not related to the portion

> falling

> > > in

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > lagna

> > > > > > > > > > rasis,

> > > > > > > > > > > which holds the degree of lagna Madhya, then it

> > > appears

> > > > we

> > > > > > must

> > > > > > > > ask

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > sages to redefine Vargas. I doubt they need our

> > > advise.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > There was a purpose.I just wanted to explain it

> to

> > > the

> > > > > > > > members if

> > > > > > > > > > > > some of them are not sure on what shadvarga of

> > > lagna

> > > > is

> > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > how it

> > > > > > > > > > > > is calculated.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > As you have said Vargas are divisions of a

> > > rashi.But

> > > > > > > > shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna is not the Vargas falling in Lagna.Here

> > > lagna is

> > > > > > not a

> > > > > > > > > > > > rashi,but a bindu.Vargas are found from a

> > > degree.The

> > > > > > degree

> > > > > > > > of a

> > > > > > > > > > > > planet or degree of lagna.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > As you may know we do notneed six charts to

> > > dtermine

> > > > > > > > shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > > > lagna.All we need is the degree of lagna and the

> > > rashi

> > > > > > rising.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Let us take an example.Lagna is at 11 degrees in

> > > > dhanu.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Let us find the shadvargas of Lagna with th help

> > > of

> > > > rising

> > > > > > > > rashi

> > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > degree.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > 1st Varga - The Rashi in which Lagna bindu is

> > > > falling -

> > > > > > Dhanu

> > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd Varga - The Hora in which Lagna bindu is

> > > falling -

> > > > As

> > > > > > 11

> > > > > > > > > > degrees

> > > > > > > > > > > > falls in the 1st half of dhanu - Surya Hora

> > > > > > > > > > > > 3rd Varga - The drekkana in which Lagna bindu is

> > > > falling -

> > > > > > As

> > > > > > > > 11

> > > > > > > > > > > > degrees falls in the 2nd 1/3rd of dhanu -

> Drekkana

> > > is

> > > > > > Mesha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > 4th Varga - As 11 degrees falls in the 3rd

> > > > > > saptamsha ,Lagna

> > > > > > > > > > saptamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > is Kumbha.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Similraly - Lagna navamsha is Karka,Lagna

> > > Trimshamsha

> > > > is

> > > > > > > > dhanu.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Thus the purpose of whole exercise was to say

> that

> > > > when

> > > > > > we say

> > > > > > > > > > > > shadvargas of Lagna or Mars,it does not mean the

> > > > rashis

> > > > > > owned

> > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna or Mars.But the Rashis on towhich they are

> > > > > > placed,having

> > > > > > > > > > > > hora,drekkana etc etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas of Mars in the 2nd Rashi from karakamsha

> > > too

> > > > is no

> > > > > > > > > > differet.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > There are many meanings,that is why Rashi is

> > > called as

> > > > > > > > > > > > Kshethra /Riksha /havana etc.But i don't think

> > > sage

> > > > will

> > > > > > use

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > saword to represent something belonging to same

> > > class.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > For example sage will not use ''sva'' to mean

> 2nd

> > > as

> > > > well

> > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > 3rd.Then

> > > > > > > > > > > > we cannot interpret.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly Rashi and navamsha will not be

> > > represented

> > > > > > using the

> > > > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > > word.Rashi/Kshethra/Riksha/Bhvana/Lagna etc are

> > > > synonyms

> > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > ifthey

> > > > > > > > > > > > are used for navamsha then what is the whole

> > > purpose

> > > > > > behind

> > > > > > > > > > defintion.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand sva was used for iems from

> > > different

> > > > > > > > classes.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > This wasin mind while making such a statement.I

> > > will

> > > > try

> > > > > > my

> > > > > > > > best

> > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > polish my style of writing.I accept my

> limitations

> > > in

> > > > > > writing.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I have not understood your question or the

> > > intent

> > > > behind

> > > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas are divisions, within a rasi, ruled by

> > > > different

> > > > > > > > grahas.

> > > > > > > > > > So

> > > > > > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > one wants t look at Vargas falling in lagna

> the

> > > shad

> > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > will

> > > > > > > > > > > > mean

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the rasi equivalent occurring at lagna

> position

> > > in

> > > > the 6

> > > > > > > > > > divisional

> > > > > > > > > > > > > charts of Rashi, Hora, Dreshkana, Navamsha,

> > > > > > Dwaadashamsha

> > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamsha. Or at least this is what I have

> > > learnt.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sages did not use words in vain or context. I

> > > > agree. But

> > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > mean they used the words to mean only one

> thing

> > > > always.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I never said that the meaning can be changed

> to

> > > > suit our

> > > > > > > > > > > > convenience and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I would request you not to attribute such

> > > > sentiments to

> > > > > > me.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > However I do say that word are used in

> different

> > > > > > contexts to

> > > > > > > > > > mean

> > > > > > > > > > > > > different things, especially in Sanskrit

> texts of

> > > > > > Jyotish. I

> > > > > > > > > > have,

> > > > > > > > > > > > just

> > > > > > > > > > > > > a few minutes back use of " Sva " with different

> > > > meaning

> > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > > > > places by Varaha Mihira to you. I hope you do

> > > not

> > > > also

> > > > > > > > attribute

> > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > words that you attributed to me to the

> venerated

> > > > Varaha

> > > > > > > > Mihira.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar,.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pls tell me what you mean by shadvargas of

> > > > lagna.How

> > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > find

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > them.Do you go by ownership or placement

> > > > > > > > > > > > (Rashi/navamsha/dwadshamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc).

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are shlokas in Varahamihiras text

> which

> > > > > > > > says ,Okarkshe

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Purushamshakae.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which means in Ojarashi and Oja amsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > As per me sages will not use any words out

> of

> > > > > > context.If

> > > > > > > > he

> > > > > > > > > > wants

> > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > say amsha he will mention it.He will not use

> > > > Rashi to

> > > > > > > > mean as

> > > > > > > > > > > > amsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ojarkshe is Oja Rashi.Similarly Paparkshe is

> > > Papa

> > > > > > Rashi.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you want to say as per our conveninece we

> > > can

> > > > > > change

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of riksha/rashi/bhavana/bhavas as navamsha

> > > then i

> > > > > > cannot

> > > > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > anything.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can only respect your views.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will tell you why that happens. You

> begin

> > > with

> > > > > > quoting

> > > > > > > > > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then give a sutra from Jaimini as being

> said

> > > by

> > > > > > > > Parashara.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Interpretation of sutras is not the

> easiest

> > > of

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > things,

> > > > > > > > > > more

> > > > > > > > > > > > so

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jaimini's Upadesha sutras. That the sutras

> > > use

> > > > > > > > KaTaPaYaadi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > encryption

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > makes them even more difficult to

> interpret.

> > > I

> > > > am

> > > > > > sure

> > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > noticed

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this when Sreenadh interpreted the

> > > KaTaPaYaadi

> > > > > > Varga in

> > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > wrong

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > fashion.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then there is your insistence to let

> Sanskrit

> > > > > > grammar

> > > > > > > > give

> > > > > > > > > > a go

> > > > > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that can make interpretation of a shloka

> or

> > > > sutra

> > > > > > fit

> > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposition.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any of the Shodasha Vargas of a rasi can

> be

> > > > > > referred to

> > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > Varga,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > but as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far as I know in astrology, when one talks

> > > of

> > > > Varga,

> > > > > > > > without

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > qualifying

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it, or Amshas that generally refers to

> > > navamsha

> > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dwadashaamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another reason that we can not agree, or

> > > seem to

> > > > > > agree,

> > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > you are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reluctant to call a navamsha by the

> > > nomenclature

> > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > rasi.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > This

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > makes it difficult to convey what I mean

> to

> > > say

> > > > in

> > > > > > > > English

> > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the language of the net and which both of

> us

> > > > know.

> > > > > > Now

> > > > > > > > > > since you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > do not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > want to use the word Mesha navamsha as

> Mesha

> > > is

> > > > a

> > > > > > rashi

> > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > logic it can not be a navamsha, it becomes

> > > > > > difficult to

> > > > > > > > > > convey

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > what I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understand by the texts.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will like to draw your attention to the

> > > > literal

> > > > > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi. It means a heap and nothing more. In

> > > > astrology

> > > > > > > > since

> > > > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > encompasses many stars that make up a

> > > nakshatra

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > 1/12th

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > division of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the zodiac is called a Rasi. Or at least

> > > this

> > > > is my

> > > > > > > > > > > > understanding

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason of using the word rasi for the

> 1/12th

> > > > > > division

> > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > zodiac.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not agree that by Chandra in Guru

> Varga

> > > it

> > > > is

> > > > > > meant

> > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandra is being seen. To me we are

> talking

> > > > about is

> > > > > > > > whether

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandra is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > falling in the Varga of Guru in which ever

> > > rasi

> > > > he

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > occupying.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > So in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Navamsha we see whether Chandra is

> occupying

> > > > Pisces

> > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > Sagittarius

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > navamsha. I also do not agree that there

> are

> > > > Vargas

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > Chandra

> > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of any

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > planet for that matter. The 16 Vargas that

> > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > talks

> > > > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that of a Rasi, beginning from the Rashi

> > > itself.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the Vargas are not owned by different

> > > > planets,

> > > > > > pray

> > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the sage

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tell us to see occupation of a friend, own

> > > etc.

> > > > > > Varga to

> > > > > > > > > > assess

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > strength of a planet in the Varga

> concerned?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have interacted with many astrologers of

> > > > > > yesteryears

> > > > > > > > (with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > respect to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > my age group) and have never found them

> > > > claiming the

> > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only lagna and planets.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you insist that sage Parashara gave the

> > > SU.

> > > > 52.-

> > > > > > > > " Tatra

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > bhrigwongaraka

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > varge paradarikaha " , perhaps you are

> > > referring

> > > > to

> > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > edition

> > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > BPHS

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that I do not have. However I do have that

> > > in

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > umpteen

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > texts on Jaimini that I do have in my

> > > library.

> > > > And

> > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > way,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > scholars have interpreted that to mean 9th

> > > from

> > > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the 2nd.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not agree that a graha can

> > > simultaneously

> > > > > > occupy

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars, simultaneously, as is

> being

> > > > > > suggested

> > > > > > > > > > whether in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in any of the Vargas. It could only occupy

> > > one

> > > > or

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > other.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have seen you arguing in favor of

> looking

> > > at

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > Shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grahas Venus and Mars. I would like you to

> > > look

> > > > at

> > > > > > all

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > six

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > charts

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whose Vargas together are referred as

> > > > Shadvargas and

> > > > > > > > try to

> > > > > > > > > > find

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > out

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whether they do indeed contain the 6

> Vargas

> > > of

> > > > Venus

> > > > > > > > and 6

> > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars. I am sure that you will find them to

> > > > contain

> > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > 5

> > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > each of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the grahas. Once you confirm this by

> looking

> > > at

> > > > the

> > > > > > 6

> > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > self,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tell me how one can look at Shadvargas of

> > > Venus

> > > > or

> > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested to be the interpretation of the

> > > sutra

> > > > that

> > > > > > > > you are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > referring to.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You may also be interested to know that

> > > > Parashara

> > > > > > talks

> > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > AK

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > falling in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Varga of Chandra, Mars or Venus also

> > > having

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > roving

> > > > > > > > > > eye

> > > > > > > > > > > > on

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > others

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wives. So the combination of Venus and

> Mars

> > > > being

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > giving

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the roving eye for other's wives, that you

> > > are

> > > > > > > > advancing as

> > > > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > standalone

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > principle, may not, necessarily, be the

> way

> > > the

> > > > sage

> > > > > > > > looked

> > > > > > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > their

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > interpretation.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Those were written by me.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am very dissappointed to see

> > > that ,inspite

> > > > of

> > > > > > > > repeating

> > > > > > > > > > > > numerus

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > times,you are unable to get what i am

> > > saying.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not talking about rashis lorded by

> > > > shukra or

> > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > here.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > am

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > talking about the shadvargas vargas of

> > > mars

> > > > and

> > > > > > > > shukra.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pls tell me what is the meaning of

> > > shadvargas

> > > > or

> > > > > > > > simply

> > > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lagna.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the rashi in which lagna is

> > > placed.The

> > > > > > > > navamshaka of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna,Trimshamshaka of Lagna etc.Can we

> > > see

> > > > any

> > > > > > > > lordship

> > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > say.Lagna does not own any rashi.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly when we say vargas of Venus -

> It

> > > > means

> > > > > > Rashi

> > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > Venus,Hora,navamshaka,drekkana,trimshamshaka

> > > > etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shadvarga is never the rashi owned by a

> > > > > > planet.Then

> > > > > > > > Lagna

> > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > never

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have shadvarga.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say,Chandra in

> Guru

> > > > > > Varga - We

> > > > > > > > > > are not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > seeing

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the shadvarga of Guru,but that of

> > > chandra.Is

> > > > > > chandra

> > > > > > > > > > placed in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guru

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rashi?Is Chandra navamshaka in Guru

> > > Rashi.Is

> > > > > > Chandra

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamshaka in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guru Rashi etc is what we check.If so

> > > chandras

> > > > > > vargas

> > > > > > > > > > fall in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > guru

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashis or we say chandra is in

> guruvargas.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the same reason schoplars of

> > > yesteryears

> > > > > > always

> > > > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for our natal Lagna and Planets.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand you are taking them as

> > > > owned by

> > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > > planet.Every

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > shadvarga that derive is like that.You

> may

> > > > check

> > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > shri

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Narasimha,how he is deriving it for his

> > > > software.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the same reason Bhrigu and Angara

> can

> > > have

> > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > together

> > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rashi which is 2nd from Karakamsha.Sage

> > > > clearly

> > > > > > talks

> > > > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vargas from both.Moreover the next

> shloka

> > > is

> > > > > > talking

> > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus together or aspecting the 2nd from

> > > > > > karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we go by your

> > > > explanation,we

> > > > > > > > have to

> > > > > > > > > > opt

> > > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just one among shukra or Mars which is

> not

> > > > > > > > proper.Their

> > > > > > > > > > Joint

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > influence creates sexual drive.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I request you to kindly read this with

> > > care.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rspect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The below remarks are not from my mail

> > > at

> > > > all.

> > > > > > I do

> > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > know

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think I would write that. I am sure

> you

> > > know

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > my

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > style

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of writing at all.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " >From my experience -Mars + Venus

> > > creates

> > > > > > certin

> > > > > > > > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why

> are

> > > you

> > > > > > going

> > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > owned by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just one of them and that too without

> a

> > > > > > planetary

> > > > > > > > link

> > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > really

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > worrying me.Shri Rath has translated

> so,i

> > > > > > agree.But

> > > > > > > > i

> > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will

> > > definitely

> > > > > > correct

> > > > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > benfit

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of jyotish community. "

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As to why I said they could not be

> > > having

> > > > their

> > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > together in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi or Bhava does not need any deeper

> > > > > > explanation.

> > > > > > > > If

> > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > looking

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at the 2nd from Karakamsha in the rasi

> > > > chart,

> > > > > > as you

> > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > right, you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > could not have both Mesha and

> Vrishabha

> > > or

> > > > Tula

> > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > Vrishchika

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd from the Karakamsha, is that not

> so?

> > > > > > Similarly

> > > > > > > > if in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the 2nd from Karakamsha is to be seen,

> > > the

> > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > > could be

> > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > navamshas.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I though you meant so.Because in

> > > > subsequent

> > > > > > lines

> > > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > see

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and Karakamsha being used for the

> same

> > > > > > > > purpose.But if

> > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there are other places where swamsha

> > > is

> > > > used

> > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagnamsha ,then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i can trust you if you can point me

> to

> > > > that.

> > > > > > This

> > > > > > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > be a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problem and in no way it will affect

> > > us.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars can ofcourse have

> their

> > > > Vargas

> > > > > > in a

> > > > > > > > > > single

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashi or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bhava.Venus can have navamsha

> > > there,Mars

> > > > can

> > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there,Venus can have Trimshamsha

> > > > there,Mars

> > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there,they both can have drekkana

> > > there

> > > > etc

> > > > > > etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus sage is talking about Bhrigu

> and

> > > > Angara

> > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > (as

> > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > identified gramattically) having

> varga

> > > > there

> > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > it is

> > > > > > > > > > > > very

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > much

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you note the next line -Sage is

> > > talking

> > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > > Venus

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > joining or aspecting the 2nd from

> > > > Karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From my experience -Mars + Venus

> > > creates

> > > > > > certin

> > > > > > > > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why

> > > are

> > > > you

> > > > > > going

> > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > owned by just one of them and that

> too

> > > > > > without a

> > > > > > > > > > planetary

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > link is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really worrying me.Shri Rath has

> > > > translated

> > > > > > so,i

> > > > > > > > > > > > agree.But i

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will

> > > > definitely

> > > > > > > > correct

> > > > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > benfit of jyotish community.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am surprised as to why you say

> > > so.That

> > > > they

> > > > > > > > cannot

> > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > together.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pardeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > > 40>,

> > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have never said that I do not

> > > think

> > > > that

> > > > > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different where the context

> demands

> > > so.

> > > > At

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > > time I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammar can be put to rest to in

> the

> > > > name of

> > > > > > > > > > context,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > without

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sound

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course if you want contextual

> > > > translation

> > > > > > > > only,

> > > > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > one can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > certainly say that the " Meshadi

> > > raashige

> > > > > > > > swaamshe "

> > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > always be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > translated as " Falling in Mesha

> > > > navamsha in

> > > > > > > > Mesha

> > > > > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc. " .

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way " Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka

> > > > Varge " ,

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mention, does

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean varga of both Venus and mars,

> > > but

> > > > of

> > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > Venus OR

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > due to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the grammar only. varga of two

> > > planets

> > > > can

> > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > fall

> > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bhava/amsha/rasi whether in rasi

> or

> > > > > > Navamsha or

> > > > > > > > any

> > > > > > > > > > > > other

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Grammatically,what you are

> saying

> > > is

> > > > also

> > > > > > > > true.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But Jyotish defintions play a

> > > > preceding

> > > > > > role

> > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > choosing

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammatical meaning.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example one meaning of

> > > > labhe ,Swamshe

> > > > > > etc

> > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 11th

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But if we go by that we will

> > > > definitely

> > > > > > > > translate

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamshe in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > meshadi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashige as ''in

> Swamsha'',thereby

> > > > > > translating

> > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > full

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart.This as you too agree,then

> > > > cannot

> > > > > > pass

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > test,of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > subsequent shlokas.I understand

> > > gladly

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > too

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > agree that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha and karakamsha are the

> > > same.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So the context decides

> > > plural/singular

> > > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > necessarily

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the ''E''

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as you have rightly mentioned.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But in essence what i want to

> say

> > > > is ''E''

> > > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > always

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean ''in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the'' as you have

> > > > interpreted.Labheshe is

> > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > example.Karake

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus it can very well mean

> Varga of

> > > > > > Shukra and

> > > > > > > > > > Mars-

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > which can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > six vargas or one varga.(Not

> > > lordship)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra -(There) In the second

> from

> > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga or Vargas of Venus and

> Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now why should we need two

> > > > qualifiesrs for

> > > > > > > > > > destination

> > > > > > > > > > > > (1)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from karakamsha 2)in the vargas

> > > of?)-

> > > > if

> > > > > > we had

> > > > > > > > > > another

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your interpretation is

> right.That

> > > > planet

> > > > > > will

> > > > > > > > > > answer

> > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > question -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who is in the vargas of ?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly - Swamshad dhane

> Shukrar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Swamshad dhane is already

> pointing

> > > to

> > > > > > > > destination-

> > > > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > need

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > another ''in the'' vargas of.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say in

> the

> > > 2nd

> > > > > > from

> > > > > > > > > > > > karakamsha if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mars and venus are present,it

> fits

> > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammatically.Moreover

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i had

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentioned rashi lordship without

> > > > planetary

> > > > > > > > link

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (placement/amsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is too general.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In

> > >

> <%40> <%

> 40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> 40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > > > 40>,

> > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I may be wrong but the " E " by

> > > itself

> > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > point

> > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > word Shadvarga indicating 6

> > > Vargas

> > > > that

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > group

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (though it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more than one unit) and

> > > so " Varge " ,

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > singular is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " E " means " in " . I would be

> happy

> > > if

> > > > an

> > > > > > > > example

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of " Varge "

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plural

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can be given.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not at all think that

> > > Vargaka

> > > > or

> > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > singular and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargake

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge is plural, at all. Both

> the

> > > > > > manner of

> > > > > > > > > > using

> > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > indicates singular. it is no

> use

> > > > > > projecting

> > > > > > > > > > what is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > clearly

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saptami

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vibhakti and singular as

> being a

> > > > plural

> > > > > > > > word. If

> > > > > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dvivachana it may

> > > become " VargyoH "

> > > > > > > > or " VargeSu "

> > > > > > > > > > (for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bahuvachan)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge. Perhaps some Sanskrit

> > > > scholar on

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > list

> > > > > > > > > > > > would

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > like

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > comment

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on this.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, much as I would like it to

> > > > resolve,

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > issue

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > remains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unresolved.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will give you a relevant

> > > > example to

> > > > > > > > explain

> > > > > > > > > > how

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > VarGE

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > context of plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna Shad-VargaKE - Is

> > > pointing

> > > > to

> > > > > > all

> > > > > > > > > > vargas -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plural.You

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > may

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > note

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that the grammatical ending

> is

> > > > > > with ''E''

> > > > > > > > > > showing

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > plurals

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expressed with such an

> ending.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now from Vrishamsha''Ka''

> and

> > > > Tulamsha

> > > > > > > > > > example we

> > > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > conclude

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VargaKA and VarGA can be

> used

> > > for

> > > > the

> > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > > purpose in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ekavachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > singular form and VargaKE

> and

> > > > VarGE

> > > > > > can be

> > > > > > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bahuvachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plural form.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope this may help us in

> > > > resolving

> > > > > > our

> > > > > > > > > > issue.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------

> ---

> > > ---

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this

> incoming

> > > > > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus

> > > Database:

> > > > > > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this

> > > message

> > > > have

> > > > > > been

> > > > > > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------

> ---

> > > ---

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

> > > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus

> Database:

> > > > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message

> > > have

> > > > been

> > > > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---

> ---

> > > ---

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

> > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message

> have

> > > been

> > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------

> ---

> > > ---

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have

> been

> > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----------

> ---

> > > ---

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------

> ---

> > > ---

> > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> 269.10.2/890 -

> > > > Release

> > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > -------------------

> ---

> > > ---

> > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/890 -

> > > Release

> > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeep,

 

Have I said I was not happy with Dashaadhyaayi? If you remember our old

correspondence, I think it was I who mentioned that Prashna Marga talks

highly about Dashaadhyaayi. My point is about only accepting the

interpretation of Dashaadhyaayi and not others. If you remember you

rejected the commentary of Bhattotpala who is considered amongst the few

top and contemporary commentators on Brihat jataka along with Rudra

Bhatt and also that of Sitaram Jha a Sanskrit scholar and professor of

astrology with Banaras Hindu University and have always been declaring

that only what is said in Dashaadhyaayi, to the exclusion of all other

classics that are as much or more respected, is right. My comments are

on that part of your arguments and not on Dashaadhyaayi per-se.

 

Saravali translation that I have with me does talk about mutual aspect

of Shukra and Shani from their exchanged Navamshas, so again this

insistence of accepting only your translation is puzzling. This is from

the hindi " Kantimati " commentary of Saravali by Dr. Muralidhar

Chaturvedi who was Jyotishacharya and Vidyaavaridhi (Ph.D.). By the way

Saravali was written by Kalyanvarma who is said to have hailed from

Bundelkhand in Hindi heartland.

 

Chandrashekhar.

 

 

 

vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>

> Kindly read what was the opinion of dashadhyayi before you may

> criticize the valuable text.After mentioning the whe shloka as

> one,the author said Thatha cha Saravalyam.

>

> Now as both of us understand cha as ''and'',does it mean the whole

> shloka is one or are they two,especially as cha comes

> after ''shaukre -belonging to shukra''.

>

> As you were not happy with Dashadhyayi,there were views from jeeva

> sharma,sruthakeerthi,Garga(giantly figures).Now Saravli has been

> quoted.

>

> Respect

> Pradeep

>

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > If you think " ca " does not mean AND, in Sanskrit then there may not

> be

> > any point in discussing this any further. And if translations of

> all

> > other learned scholars are to be rejected in favour of

> Dashaadhyaayi,

> > then there is no use discussing what Parashara said too as

> Dashaadhyaayi

> > is a commentary on Brihat jataka.

> >

> > Personally, I do not think that only Dashaadhyaayi encompasses all

> the

> > vedic astrological knowledge though it is one amongst the respected

> texts.

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > If you remember our first discussion,which is present in the

> > > archives,you were only mentioning about shukra and saturn in

> > > paraspara amsha and aspecting each other.You had added that these

> are

> > > aspects in Trimshamsha chakra.

> > >

> > > I had then quoted the second line which points to Lagna being

> that of

> > > Shukra and its navamsha in ghata rashi.

> > >

> > > For which your reply was we are looking into different texts.

> > >

> > > You have only quoted the 2nd line from Saravali.

> > >

> > > The full shloka in Saravali is as follows -

> > > Shukra Sithau yadi paraspara bhaga samsthau

> > > shaukre cha drishti pathagavudaye ghatamshe

> > >

> > > Thus the first line does not contain any aspect mentioned.How can

> we

> > > say that the first line is stand alone.Do you say if Shukra and

> > > Saturn are in each others amsha a lady will behave like this.

> > > The second line makes it complete.The lagna should be that of

> > > shukra,saturn and venus should aspect each other,and lagnamsha

> should

> > > fall in Ghatamsha.

> > >

> > > Thus Dashadhyayi kara is crystal clear on what Saravali is

> > > saying.Atleast for this shloka i feel there is no ambiguity

> needed.

> > >

> > > Respect

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > If Dashaadhyaayi thinks Saravali is a standard text to rely

> upon (

> > > as

> > > > you have quoted a reference therein quoting Saravali to support

> > > some

> > > > interpretation) why say that other concepts in Saravali are

> wrong?

> > > > Saravali says " Shaukre ca drishtipathagaavudaye ghataamshe " etc.

> > > > indicating the necessity of exchange of amshas and mutual aspect

> > > between

> > > > Shukra and Shani as concurrent condition for the first yoga to

> > > fructify.

> > > > And then goes on to say that if for a lagna having rasi of

> Shukra

> > > and

> > > > navamsha of Shani similar results would ensue. GhataaMshe has

> been

> > > > interpreted as the amsha of Shani and not merely amsha of

> Kumbha by

> > > many

> > > > translators.

> > > >

> > > > I can not comment on the interpretation of Dashaadhyaayikar of

> the

> > > > shloka but the shloka from Brihat Jataka that I have also says

> > > > " driksamsthaavasitasito parasparaamshe shoke vaa yadi ghata

> > > > raashisambhavoMshaH. " followed by the next line that I did not

> find

> > > > necessary to quote as it does not talk about the yoga but only

> the

> > > > results, which you have already quoted and I felt may not be

> > > necessary

> > > > to post on line.

> > > >

> > > > That there are two distinct yogas is also not new to

> translators of

> > > > Brihat jataka. Since you accept that the first line does say

> about

> > > > occupation of each others amsha AND aspect on each other is

> indeed

> > > > covered in the first line, the reluctance to accept aspects in

> > > specific

> > > > cases is something that I am not able to understand.

> > > >

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > >

> > > > > I can clearly understand your position.Especially as you have

> > > > > said,the texts that we are referring to are different.Here

> comes

> > > the

> > > > > importance of Dashadhyayi.After my explanation you can also

> see

> > > that

> > > > > it is not only dashadhyayi ,but Saravali as well is having the

> > > same

> > > > > opinion on the shloka explained below.

> > > > >

> > > > > As i have mentioned yesterday,dashadhyayi is not covering

> just the

> > > > > first 10 chapters as the name suggests.For example let me

> take a

> > > > > chapter towards the end ,chapter 22-Sthree Jataka Adhyaya.

> > > > >

> > > > > Thalakkulathu Govinda Bhattathiri has given

> interpretations,for

> > > all

> > > > > the shlokas from 1 through 16,except shloka 13, while

> interpreting

> > > > > chapters 1 through 10. Shloka 13 as you can see is pretty

> straight

> > > > > forward.

> > > > >

> > > > > Now let us take the shloka which as per you is referring

> > > > > to ''Trimshamsha Chakra'' with aspects therein.Firstly the

> results

> > > > > for planets being placed in rashis belonging to Mesha

> onwards,and

> > > > > within that Trimshamshas belonging to Mars onwards is

> explained

> > > and

> > > > > ends by shloka 6.

> > > > >

> > > > > Now let us take

> > > > >

> > > > > ''Driksamstha VasithaSithau Parasparamshe

> > > > > Shaukre Va yadi Ghata Rashi Sambhavomsha''

> > > > > Next 2 lines explains the result.

> > > > >

> > > > > As per you,there is only a reference regarding Venus and

> Saturn

> > > > > aspecting each other and also in each others Amsha.This is

> covered

> > > > > in the first line.My worry is where has the second line gone

> in

> > > the

> > > > > text that you are having.Either it was not interpreted or it

> was

> > > > > inadvertently got missed out from printing.

> > > > >

> > > > > Now Dashadhyayi says -

> > > > >

> > > > > Driksamsthau ithyadi Yoga dvayam - Two Yogas.First one is

> > > > > corresponding to the first line as we have seen.

> > > > >

> > > > > Shaukre Rashau Yadi Kumbhamshe Udethi ..Thatha dvitheeyam -

> the

> > > > > second.Meaning ,The Ascendant should be either Tula or

> Vrishabha

> > > and

> > > > > it should have Kumbhamsha(Kumbha is Ghata - Ghata Rashi

> > > > > Sambhavomsha).

> > > > >

> > > > > Now the author says, as per some these two can be taken as one

> > > yoga

> > > > > as well(Saravali too says so).

> > > > >

> > > > > Parasparamshagatha Vasitha Sithou Paraspara Drishtau Shaukre

> > > > > Rashavudayathi Kumbhamshakashcha Bhavathi Yadee - then the

> > > > > result.And the author says -T hatha Cha Saravalyam.And quotes

> > > > > corresponding shloka from Saravali,where again the said line

> is

> > > > > present(sanskrit).Thus it says - For a Lady to have such a

> strong

> > > > > sexual desire - Purusha Veshadhari(One dressign up as a man -

> thus

> > > > > lesbian),her ascendant should belong to Venus and the amsha

> of her

> > > > > ascendant should fall in Kumbha Rashi,and in her chart Saturn

> and

> > > > > Venus should aspect each other and also have exchange of

> amshas.

> > > > >

> > > > > Thus you see,in either case there is a line which is missing

> in

> > > your

> > > > > book,which helps us to understand that it is not a varga

> chakra.I

> > > > > dont know how it happened.

> > > > >

> > > > > Thus if Dashadhyayi was not there,then i would have also not

> got

> > > any

> > > > > opportunity to understand this in such detail.This is the

> beauty

> > > of

> > > > > this text and as you know without any value ParashnaMarga

> will not

> > > > > praise it with such a high regard.The rest of the text is

> great

> > > and

> > > > > explains every concept with authority,quoting many sources.

> > > > >

> > > > > I consider you with great regard(Gurusthana) and holds respect

> > > > > towards your views and analysis.You may kindly understand

> that,i

> > > > > will not misquote and misrepresent,especially when the

> subject is

> > > > > Jyotish.If some others in this list is having mistrust,they

> should

> > > > > understand that i am not the only keralite living in this

> universe

> > > > > and they can seek help from others to see if i am cheating.I

> have

> > > no

> > > > > hatred towards their words.If it brings happiness to them let

> them

> > > > > continue with false allegations.

> > > > >

> > > > > I will prepare the paper and then would request your good

> self to

> > > > > review.I am so thankful that you have tested me with tough

> > > questions

> > > > > and logic,which has helped me to learn more.

> > > > >

> > > > > Respect

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Purna drishte Purna Yogam Ardha Drishte ardhameva cha

> > > > > > Pada drishte Padayogamiti gyeyam kramat phalam.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Is mentioned and hence the aspects are not about Rashi

> drishti.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Now as i have mentioned in the past,though the name is

> > > > > > dashadhyayi,the author covers shlokas,from most of the

> chapters

> > > as

> > > > > > and when he finds some interrelationship or link.This i

> consider

> > > > > as a

> > > > > > real blessing.Now how amshakas are interpreted,has been

> > > > > > demonstrated ,for numerous contexts,and thus forming a

> guideline

> > > > > for

> > > > > > other shloka interpretations.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I will see the shlokas,and will write back.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Transits are to be seen no doubt from the rasis

> synonymous to

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > navamsha rasis, but when it is sphuta it is of the

> navamshesha

> > > > > and

> > > > > > not

> > > > > > > the rasis. There is a difference between the two.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I have already said I do not consider aspects in D-charts,

> > > > > unless

> > > > > > > specifically mentioned in some yogas, and also that

> barring

> > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > charts, in other varga charts I look at rashi aspects.

> That

> > > does

> > > > > > not

> > > > > > > mean I should close my eyes to what is written in other

> > > > > respected

> > > > > > texts.

> > > > > > > That only means I look at charts from a different angle.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > There is nothing in the lagna shadvargake shloka to

> indicate

> > > > > graded

> > > > > > > aspects and so it does not rule out rashi drishti at all.

> Ans

> > > > > since

> > > > > > you

> > > > > > > have quoted both Parashara and Jaimini you should know

> that

> > > > > rashi

> > > > > > > drishtis are valid in Parashara too and exclusively so in

> > > > > Jaimini.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Your translation and mine of the shlokas differ and that

> is

> > > why

> > > > > > there is

> > > > > > > no agreement. If you expect Dashaadhyaayi to give

> divisional

> > > > > charts

> > > > > > and

> > > > > > > their interpretations, that is not possible as Varaha

> Mihira

> > > on

> > > > > > whose

> > > > > > > work it is only a commentary does not speak of it and it

> is

> > > > > > commentary

> > > > > > > on only 10 of the 18 adhayaayas of Brihat jataka. If you

> read

> > > > > > Brihat

> > > > > > > jataka carefully, you will see reference o aspects in

> > > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > there.

> > > > > > > Since you have many times claimed superiority of

> Dashaadhyaayi

> > > > > over

> > > > > > many

> > > > > > > of the more ancient and respected classics, I find it

> strange

> > > as

> > > > > to

> > > > > > why

> > > > > > > you do not want to accept what is said in the original

> text on

> > > > > > which

> > > > > > > Dashaadhyaayi is only a commentary and that too on 10

> > > adhyaayas

> > > > > as

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > name suggests (that does not, of course, make it any less

> > > > > > respectable).

> > > > > > > There are many references to planets being placed in a

> > > navamsha,

> > > > > > which

> > > > > > > is not identical with the rasi whose name the navamsha

> enjoys,

> > > > > and

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > results from them in the 21st adhyaaya. How do you map

> back

> > > such

> > > > > a

> > > > > > > navamsha to the rasi and what should be the logic? You

> also

> > > see

> > > > > > > reference to Guru occupying own Trimshamsha, irrespective

> of

> > > > > rasi

> > > > > > in the

> > > > > > > same adhayaaya. There are too many references like this to

> > > > > question

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > theory that the amshas need always be mapped back to

> identical

> > > > > rasi

> > > > > > in

> > > > > > > rasi chart.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Could you tell why this reluctance to accept Varaha

> Mihira?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Meshamshe, Vrishamshe Transit results can be seen from

> Mesha

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > > Vrishabha rashis.Thus you are aware of what i am

> > > > > saying.Moreover

> > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > have seen paparkshe.we have seen meshadi rashige

> swamshe.we

> > > > > have

> > > > > > seen

> > > > > > > > that bhrigwonkaraka varge ,as per your understanding

> cannot

> > > > > > satisfy

> > > > > > > > both mars and venus.The very next shloka is talking

> about

> > > mars

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > > venus yuti or aspecting.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Now we can forget all these as you are not williing to

> > > accept

> > > > > > > > rashi,riksha etc as valid reasoning.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > We have seen Lagna shadvargake shloka with aspectual

> > > > > > grades,proving

> > > > > > > > that they ae not rashi drishtis.Couple of days back and

> many

> > > > > > times in

> > > > > > > > the past,i have heard from you that you don't support

> > > aspects

> > > > > in

> > > > > > > > Vargas.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > If you still have the sam views,then to understand

> > > shadvargake

> > > > > > > > shloka,we have to see planets aspecting lagna in ''six

> > > > > charts''.As

> > > > > > > > lagna can fall in any rashi,you have to accept aspects

> fully

> > > > > in

> > > > > > all

> > > > > > > > Varga charts.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > This is relevant to our discussion as lagnamsha is also

> > > part of

> > > > > > > > shadvargas of lagna.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > As you are aware ,the BPHS translator too has expressed

> his

> > > > > > concern.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > How could I think shadvarga of lagna is shadvarga of

> > > rashi?

> > > > > > Lagna

> > > > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > > > point on the eastern horizon at the time of birth of a

> > > > > jataka.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > There is no dispute about what is lagnamsha and what

> is

> > > > > > karakamsha

> > > > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > > all. At the same time when reference is to a graha

> > > falling in

> > > > > > > > Lagnamsha

> > > > > > > > > it refers to the navamsha rasi (or sector ruled by

> one of

> > > > > the

> > > > > > rasis

> > > > > > > > of a

> > > > > > > > > planet, barring Sun and Chandra if you like it that

> way)

> > > in

> > > > > > which

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > lagnamsha falls. Now that being so where is the shubha

> > > graha

> > > > > > > > supposed to

> > > > > > > > > fall in the shloka I quoted? Same with the Shubh

> graha in

> > > > > > > > Karakamsha and

> > > > > > > > > needing drishti of shubha graha on it. It is easy to

> say

> > > that

> > > > > > > > these

> > > > > > > > > need to be seen in rasi, but for lack of the

> reference to

> > > > > rasi,

> > > > > > > > there,

> > > > > > > > > there is no reason to assume that it does not refer to

> > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > rasi.

> > > > > > > > > The reference to grahas

> in " Meshaamshe " , " Vrishabhaamshe "

> > > > > etc

> > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > quite

> > > > > > > > > clear, in BPHS.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Of course Yes,you are correct.Varga is found for

> this

> > > > > bindu

> > > > > > and in

> > > > > > > > > > the case of planets their degree decides.The rest

> you

> > > have

> > > > > > stated

> > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > also as per definition.My point was made under the

> > > > > impression

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > you have a view that,shadvarga of Lagna is

> shadvarga of

> > > a

> > > > > > > > rashi.If so

> > > > > > > > > > it is not.Shad varga is found for Lagna bindu.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > The full Rashi/Kshethra in which Lagna bindu falls

> > > becomes

> > > > > its

> > > > > > > > first

> > > > > > > > > > Varga.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > The Translation is entiterely correct and no one can

> > > > > > > > contradict.This

> > > > > > > > > > is similar to one planet aspecting shadvargas of

> lagna.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Lagnamsha is already covered in the shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > lagna.Karakamsha is

> > > > > > > > > > similar too.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Now let us see it on a chart.Karkamasha is in

> > > > > Dhanu.Jupiter is

> > > > > > > > placed

> > > > > > > > > > in Mithuna Rashi.Shubha graha is aspecting

> Karakamsha

> > > Lagna

> > > > > > > > > > (Rashi).Similarly Lagnamsha.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > You are already aware of the rules for aspects.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I see your point of view. anyway even within

> > > shadvargas

> > > > > we

> > > > > > look

> > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > degree of a planet falling within a certain span

> of

> > > > > degrees

> > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > particular bindu.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I agree that rashi is a Varga and my question is

> if

> > > one

> > > > > can

> > > > > > > > look at

> > > > > > > > > > > aspects in one Varga why not in other Vargas? I am

> > > sure

> > > > > you

> > > > > > know

> > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > personally I use navamsha to find only the

> strength of

> > > > > > grahas,

> > > > > > > > but

> > > > > > > > > > there

> > > > > > > > > > > is no reason to rule out aspects in Navamshas or

> other

> > > > > > charts

> > > > > > > > > > totally.

> > > > > > > > > > > One of the raj yogas mentioned by Parashara talks

> of

> > > > > aspect

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > shubha

> > > > > > > > > > > grahas on the karakamsha and Lagnamsha which

> should

> > > also

> > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > tenanted by

> > > > > > > > > > > Shubha grahas, leaving no doubt as to where the

> > > aspects

> > > > > are

> > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > seen.

> > > > > > > > > > > And for the record the translation to that effect

> is

> > > by

> > > > > an

> > > > > > > > eminent

> > > > > > > > > > > astrologer who was Professor of astrology in

> Banaras

> > > > > Hindu

> > > > > > > > > > University.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna as a bindu was mentioned for driving home

> the

> > > > > > shadvarga

> > > > > > > > > > > > calculations,if any members were having

> doubts.For

> > > > > > shadvarga

> > > > > > > > > > > > calculation of planets too we need the bindu or

> > > degree

> > > > > of

> > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > > > > > within a rashi, as you are aware.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > We have to look at Rashis.This is so because

> Rashi

> > > > > (one 30

> > > > > > > > degree

> > > > > > > > > > > > sector ) is the first varga.As this Varga is

> > > > > synonymous

> > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > Bhava

> > > > > > > > > > > > houses are analysed w.r to Rashis.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > If lagna is a bindu a you propose, and nothing

> > > more,

> > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > how

> > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > indicate an entire rasi? Now if this is

> correct,

> > > and

> > > > > > > > technically

> > > > > > > > > > > > it is,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > then by your reckoning there is no need to

> look at

> > > > > rasis

> > > > > > > > too. Is

> > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > what you mean to say?

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > If shadvargas are not related to the portion

> > > falling

> > > > > in

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > lagna

> > > > > > > > > > > > rasis,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > which holds the degree of lagna Madhya, then

> it

> > > > > appears

> > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > must

> > > > > > > > > > ask

> > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > sages to redefine Vargas. I doubt they need

> our

> > > > > advise.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > There was a purpose.I just wanted to

> explain it

> > > to

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > members if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > some of them are not sure on what shadvarga

> of

> > > > > lagna

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > how it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is calculated.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > As you have said Vargas are divisions of a

> > > > > rashi.But

> > > > > > > > > > shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna is not the Vargas falling in

> Lagna.Here

> > > > > lagna is

> > > > > > > > not a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashi,but a bindu.Vargas are found from a

> > > > > degree.The

> > > > > > > > degree

> > > > > > > > > > of a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > planet or degree of lagna.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > As you may know we do notneed six charts to

> > > > > dtermine

> > > > > > > > > > shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > lagna.All we need is the degree of lagna

> and the

> > > > > rashi

> > > > > > > > rising.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us take an example.Lagna is at 11

> degrees in

> > > > > > dhanu.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us find the shadvargas of Lagna with th

> help

> > > > > of

> > > > > > rising

> > > > > > > > > > rashi

> > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > degree.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1st Varga - The Rashi in which Lagna bindu

> is

> > > > > > falling -

> > > > > > > > Dhanu

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd Varga - The Hora in which Lagna bindu is

> > > > > falling -

> > > > > > As

> > > > > > > > 11

> > > > > > > > > > > > degrees

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > falls in the 1st half of dhanu - Surya Hora

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3rd Varga - The drekkana in which Lagna

> bindu is

> > > > > > falling -

> > > > > > > > As

> > > > > > > > > > 11

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > degrees falls in the 2nd 1/3rd of dhanu -

> > > Drekkana

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > > Mesha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4th Varga - As 11 degrees falls in the 3rd

> > > > > > > > saptamsha ,Lagna

> > > > > > > > > > > > saptamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is Kumbha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similraly - Lagna navamsha is Karka,Lagna

> > > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > dhanu.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus the purpose of whole exercise was to

> say

> > > that

> > > > > > when

> > > > > > > > we say

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > shadvargas of Lagna or Mars,it does not

> mean the

> > > > > > rashis

> > > > > > > > owned

> > > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna or Mars.But the Rashis on towhich

> they are

> > > > > > > > placed,having

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > hora,drekkana etc etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas of Mars in the 2nd Rashi from

> karakamsha

> > > > > too

> > > > > > is no

> > > > > > > > > > > > differet.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are many meanings,that is why Rashi is

> > > > > called as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kshethra /Riksha /havana etc.But i don't

> think

> > > > > sage

> > > > > > will

> > > > > > > > use

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > saword to represent something belonging to

> same

> > > > > class.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example sage will not use ''sva'' to

> mean

> > > 2nd

> > > > > as

> > > > > > well

> > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > 3rd.Then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > we cannot interpret.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly Rashi and navamsha will not be

> > > > > represented

> > > > > > > > using the

> > > > > > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > word.Rashi/Kshethra/Riksha/Bhvana/Lagna etc

> are

> > > > > > synonyms

> > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > ifthey

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > are used for navamsha then what is the whole

> > > > > purpose

> > > > > > > > behind

> > > > > > > > > > > > defintion.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand sva was used for iems from

> > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > classes.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > This wasin mind while making such a

> statement.I

> > > > > will

> > > > > > try

> > > > > > > > my

> > > > > > > > > > best

> > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > polish my style of writing.I accept my

> > > limitations

> > > > > in

> > > > > > > > writing.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have not understood your question or the

> > > > > intent

> > > > > > behind

> > > > > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas are divisions, within a rasi,

> ruled by

> > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > grahas.

> > > > > > > > > > > > So

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one wants t look at Vargas falling in

> lagna

> > > the

> > > > > shad

> > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > will

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the rasi equivalent occurring at lagna

> > > position

> > > > > in

> > > > > > the 6

> > > > > > > > > > > > divisional

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > charts of Rashi, Hora, Dreshkana,

> Navamsha,

> > > > > > > > Dwaadashamsha

> > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamsha. Or at least this is what I

> have

> > > > > learnt.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sages did not use words in vain or

> context. I

> > > > > > agree. But

> > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean they used the words to mean only one

> > > thing

> > > > > > always.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I never said that the meaning can be

> changed

> > > to

> > > > > > suit our

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > convenience and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would request you not to attribute such

> > > > > > sentiments to

> > > > > > > > me.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However I do say that word are used in

> > > different

> > > > > > > > contexts to

> > > > > > > > > > > > mean

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different things, especially in Sanskrit

> > > texts of

> > > > > > > > Jyotish. I

> > > > > > > > > > > > have,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > just

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a few minutes back use of " Sva " with

> different

> > > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > places by Varaha Mihira to you. I hope

> you do

> > > > > not

> > > > > > also

> > > > > > > > > > attribute

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words that you attributed to me to the

> > > venerated

> > > > > > Varaha

> > > > > > > > > > Mihira.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar,.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pls tell me what you mean by shadvargas

> of

> > > > > > lagna.How

> > > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > find

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them.Do you go by ownership or placement

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (Rashi/navamsha/dwadshamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc).

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are shlokas in Varahamihiras text

> > > which

> > > > > > > > > > says ,Okarkshe

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Purushamshakae.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which means in Ojarashi and Oja amsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As per me sages will not use any words

> out

> > > of

> > > > > > > > context.If

> > > > > > > > > > he

> > > > > > > > > > > > wants

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > say amsha he will mention it.He will

> not use

> > > > > > Rashi to

> > > > > > > > > > mean as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > amsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ojarkshe is Oja Rashi.Similarly

> Paparkshe is

> > > > > Papa

> > > > > > > > Rashi.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you want to say as per our

> conveninece we

> > > > > can

> > > > > > > > change

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of riksha/rashi/bhavana/bhavas as

> navamsha

> > > > > then i

> > > > > > > > cannot

> > > > > > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anything.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can only respect your views.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will tell you why that happens. You

> > > begin

> > > > > with

> > > > > > > > quoting

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then give a sutra from Jaimini as

> being

> > > said

> > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > Parashara.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Interpretation of sutras is not the

> > > easiest

> > > > > of

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > things,

> > > > > > > > > > > > more

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > so

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jaimini's Upadesha sutras. That the

> sutras

> > > > > use

> > > > > > > > > > KaTaPaYaadi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > encryption

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > makes them even more difficult to

> > > interpret.

> > > > > I

> > > > > > am

> > > > > > > > sure

> > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > noticed

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this when Sreenadh interpreted the

> > > > > KaTaPaYaadi

> > > > > > > > Varga in

> > > > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > > wrong

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fashion.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then there is your insistence to let

> > > Sanskrit

> > > > > > > > grammar

> > > > > > > > > > give

> > > > > > > > > > > > a go

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that can make interpretation of a

> shloka

> > > or

> > > > > > sutra

> > > > > > > > fit

> > > > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposition.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any of the Shodasha Vargas of a rasi

> can

> > > be

> > > > > > > > referred to

> > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far as I know in astrology, when one

> talks

> > > > > of

> > > > > > Varga,

> > > > > > > > > > without

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > qualifying

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it, or Amshas that generally refers to

> > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dwadashaamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another reason that we can not agree,

> or

> > > > > seem to

> > > > > > > > agree,

> > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reluctant to call a navamsha by the

> > > > > nomenclature

> > > > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > rasi.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > makes it difficult to convey what I

> mean

> > > to

> > > > > say

> > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > English

> > > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the language of the net and which

> both of

> > > us

> > > > > > know.

> > > > > > > > Now

> > > > > > > > > > > > since you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > want to use the word Mesha navamsha as

> > > Mesha

> > > > > is

> > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > rashi

> > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > logic it can not be a navamsha, it

> becomes

> > > > > > > > difficult to

> > > > > > > > > > > > convey

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understand by the texts.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will like to draw your attention to

> the

> > > > > > literal

> > > > > > > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi. It means a heap and nothing

> more. In

> > > > > > astrology

> > > > > > > > > > since

> > > > > > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > encompasses many stars that make up a

> > > > > nakshatra

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > 1/12th

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > division of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the zodiac is called a Rasi. Or at

> least

> > > > > this

> > > > > > is my

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason of using the word rasi for the

> > > 1/12th

> > > > > > > > division

> > > > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > zodiac.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not agree that by Chandra in Guru

> > > Varga

> > > > > it

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > meant

> > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandra is being seen. To me we are

> > > talking

> > > > > > about is

> > > > > > > > > > whether

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandra is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > falling in the Varga of Guru in which

> ever

> > > > > rasi

> > > > > > he

> > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > occupying.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Navamsha we see whether Chandra is

> > > occupying

> > > > > > Pisces

> > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sagittarius

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > navamsha. I also do not agree that

> there

> > > are

> > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > Chandra

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of any

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > planet for that matter. The 16 Vargas

> that

> > > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > > > talks

> > > > > > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that of a Rasi, beginning from the

> Rashi

> > > > > itself.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the Vargas are not owned by

> different

> > > > > > planets,

> > > > > > > > pray

> > > > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the sage

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tell us to see occupation of a

> friend, own

> > > > > etc.

> > > > > > > > Varga to

> > > > > > > > > > > > assess

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > strength of a planet in the Varga

> > > concerned?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have interacted with many

> astrologers of

> > > > > > > > yesteryears

> > > > > > > > > > (with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > respect to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > my age group) and have never found

> them

> > > > > > claiming the

> > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only lagna and planets.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you insist that sage Parashara

> gave the

> > > > > SU.

> > > > > > 52.-

> > > > > > > > > > " Tatra

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bhrigwongaraka

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > varge paradarikaha " , perhaps you are

> > > > > referring

> > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > > edition

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BPHS

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that I do not have. However I do have

> that

> > > > > in

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > umpteen

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > texts on Jaimini that I do have in my

> > > > > library.

> > > > > > And

> > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > way,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > scholars have interpreted that to

> mean 9th

> > > > > from

> > > > > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the 2nd.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not agree that a graha can

> > > > > simultaneously

> > > > > > > > occupy

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars, simultaneously, as is

> > > being

> > > > > > > > suggested

> > > > > > > > > > > > whether in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in any of the Vargas. It could only

> occupy

> > > > > one

> > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > other.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have seen you arguing in favor of

> > > looking

> > > > > at

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > Shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grahas Venus and Mars. I would like

> you to

> > > > > look

> > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > all

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > six

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > charts

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whose Vargas together are referred as

> > > > > > Shadvargas and

> > > > > > > > > > try to

> > > > > > > > > > > > find

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > out

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whether they do indeed contain the 6

> > > Vargas

> > > > > of

> > > > > > Venus

> > > > > > > > > > and 6

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars. I am sure that you will find

> them to

> > > > > > contain

> > > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > 5

> > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > each of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the grahas. Once you confirm this by

> > > looking

> > > > > at

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > 6

> > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > self,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tell me how one can look at

> Shadvargas of

> > > > > Venus

> > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested to be the interpretation of

> the

> > > > > sutra

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > you are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > referring to.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You may also be interested to know

> that

> > > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > talks

> > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > AK

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > falling in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Varga of Chandra, Mars or Venus

> also

> > > > > having

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > roving

> > > > > > > > > > > > eye

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wives. So the combination of Venus and

> > > Mars

> > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > giving

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the roving eye for other's wives,

> that you

> > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > advancing as

> > > > > > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > standalone

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > principle, may not, necessarily, be

> the

> > > way

> > > > > the

> > > > > > sage

> > > > > > > > > > looked

> > > > > > > > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > their

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > interpretation.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Those were written by me.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am very dissappointed to see

> > > > > that ,inspite

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > repeating

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > numerus

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > times,you are unable to get what i

> am

> > > > > saying.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not talking about rashis

> lorded by

> > > > > > shukra or

> > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > here.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > am

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > talking about the shadvargas vargas

> of

> > > > > mars

> > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > shukra.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pls tell me what is the meaning of

> > > > > shadvargas

> > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > simply

> > > > > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lagna.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the rashi in which lagna is

> > > > > placed.The

> > > > > > > > > > navamshaka of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna,Trimshamshaka of Lagna

> etc.Can we

> > > > > see

> > > > > > any

> > > > > > > > > > lordship

> > > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > say.Lagna does not own any rashi.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly when we say vargas of

> Venus -

> > > It

> > > > > > means

> > > > > > > > Rashi

> > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > Venus,Hora,navamshaka,drekkana,trimshamshaka

> > > > > > etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shadvarga is never the rashi owned

> by a

> > > > > > > > planet.Then

> > > > > > > > > > Lagna

> > > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > never

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have shadvarga.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say,Chandra

> in

> > > Guru

> > > > > > > > Varga - We

> > > > > > > > > > > > are not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > seeing

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the shadvarga of Guru,but that of

> > > > > chandra.Is

> > > > > > > > chandra

> > > > > > > > > > > > placed in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guru

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rashi?Is Chandra navamshaka in Guru

> > > > > Rashi.Is

> > > > > > > > Chandra

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamshaka in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guru Rashi etc is what we check.If

> so

> > > > > chandras

> > > > > > > > vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > fall in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > guru

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashis or we say chandra is in

> > > guruvargas.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the same reason schoplars of

> > > > > yesteryears

> > > > > > > > always

> > > > > > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for our natal Lagna and Planets.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand you are taking

> them as

> > > > > > owned by

> > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > planet.Every

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > shadvarga that derive is like

> that.You

> > > may

> > > > > > check

> > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > shri

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Narasimha,how he is deriving it for

> his

> > > > > > software.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the same reason Bhrigu and

> Angara

> > > can

> > > > > have

> > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > together

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rashi which is 2nd from

> Karakamsha.Sage

> > > > > > clearly

> > > > > > > > talks

> > > > > > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vargas from both.Moreover the next

> > > shloka

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > > talking

> > > > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus together or aspecting the 2nd

> from

> > > > > > > > karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we go by your

> > > > > > explanation,we

> > > > > > > > > > have to

> > > > > > > > > > > > opt

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just one among shukra or Mars which

> is

> > > not

> > > > > > > > > > proper.Their

> > > > > > > > > > > > Joint

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > influence creates sexual drive.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I request you to kindly read this

> with

> > > > > care.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rspect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> 40>,

> > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The below remarks are not from my

> mail

> > > > > at

> > > > > > all.

> > > > > > > > I do

> > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > know

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think I would write that. I am

> sure

> > > you

> > > > > know

> > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > my

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > style

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of writing at all.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " >From my experience -Mars + Venus

> > > > > creates

> > > > > > > > certin

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced

> this.Why

> > > are

> > > > > you

> > > > > > > > going

> > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > owned by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just one of them and that too

> without

> > > a

> > > > > > > > planetary

> > > > > > > > > > link

> > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > worrying me.Shri Rath has

> translated

> > > so,i

> > > > > > > > agree.But

> > > > > > > > > > i

> > > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will

> > > > > definitely

> > > > > > > > correct

> > > > > > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > benfit

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of jyotish community. "

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As to why I said they could not be

> > > > > having

> > > > > > their

> > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > together in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi or Bhava does not need any

> deeper

> > > > > > > > explanation.

> > > > > > > > > > If

> > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > looking

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at the 2nd from Karakamsha in the

> rasi

> > > > > > chart,

> > > > > > > > as you

> > > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > right, you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > could not have both Mesha and

> > > Vrishabha

> > > > > or

> > > > > > Tula

> > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vrishchika

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd from the Karakamsha, is that

> not

> > > so?

> > > > > > > > Similarly

> > > > > > > > > > if in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the 2nd from Karakamsha is to be

> seen,

> > > > > the

> > > > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > > > > could be

> > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > navamshas.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I though you meant so.Because in

> > > > > > subsequent

> > > > > > > > lines

> > > > > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > see

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and Karakamsha being used for

> the

> > > same

> > > > > > > > > > purpose.But if

> > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there are other places where

> swamsha

> > > > > is

> > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagnamsha ,then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i can trust you if you can

> point me

> > > to

> > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > This

> > > > > > > > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problem and in no way it will

> affect

> > > > > us.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars can ofcourse have

> > > their

> > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > in a

> > > > > > > > > > > > single

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashi or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bhava.Venus can have navamsha

> > > > > there,Mars

> > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there,Venus can have Trimshamsha

> > > > > > there,Mars

> > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there,they both can have

> drekkana

> > > > > there

> > > > > > etc

> > > > > > > > etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus sage is talking about

> Bhrigu

> > > and

> > > > > > Angara

> > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > (as

> > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > identified gramattically) having

> > > varga

> > > > > > there

> > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > it is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > very

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > much

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you note the next line -Sage

> is

> > > > > talking

> > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > joining or aspecting the 2nd

> from

> > > > > > Karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From my experience -Mars +

> Venus

> > > > > creates

> > > > > > > > certin

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced

> this.Why

> > > > > are

> > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > going

> > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > owned by just one of them and

> that

> > > too

> > > > > > > > without a

> > > > > > > > > > > > planetary

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > link is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really worrying me.Shri Rath has

> > > > > > translated

> > > > > > > > so,i

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > agree.But i

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath

> will

> > > > > > definitely

> > > > > > > > > > correct

> > > > > > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > benfit of jyotish community.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am surprised as to why you say

> > > > > so.That

> > > > > > they

> > > > > > > > > > cannot

> > > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > together.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pardeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> 40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > > > > 40>,

> > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have never said that I do

> not

> > > > > think

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different where the context

> > > demands

> > > > > so.

> > > > > > At

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > time I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammar can be put to rest to

> in

> > > the

> > > > > > name of

> > > > > > > > > > > > context,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sound

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course if you want

> contextual

> > > > > > translation

> > > > > > > > > > only,

> > > > > > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > certainly say that

> the " Meshadi

> > > > > raashige

> > > > > > > > > > swaamshe "

> > > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > always be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > translated as " Falling in

> Mesha

> > > > > > navamsha in

> > > > > > > > > > Mesha

> > > > > > > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc. " .

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way " Tatra

> Bhrigwonkaraka

> > > > > > Varge " ,

> > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mention, does

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean varga of both Venus and

> mars,

> > > > > but

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus OR

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > due to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the grammar only. varga of two

> > > > > planets

> > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > fall

> > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bhava/amsha/rasi whether in

> rasi

> > > or

> > > > > > > > Navamsha or

> > > > > > > > > > any

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > other

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Grammatically,what you are

> > > saying

> > > > > is

> > > > > > also

> > > > > > > > > > true.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But Jyotish defintions play

> a

> > > > > > preceding

> > > > > > > > role

> > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > choosing

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammatical meaning.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example one meaning of

> > > > > > labhe ,Swamshe

> > > > > > > > etc

> > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 11th

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But if we go by that we will

> > > > > > definitely

> > > > > > > > > > translate

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamshe in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > meshadi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashige as ''in

> > > Swamsha'',thereby

> > > > > > > > translating

> > > > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > full

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart.This as you too

> agree,then

> > > > > > cannot

> > > > > > > > pass

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > test,of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > subsequent shlokas.I

> understand

> > > > > gladly

> > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > too

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > agree that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha and karakamsha are

> the

> > > > > same.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So the context decides

> > > > > plural/singular

> > > > > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > necessarily

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the ''E''

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as you have rightly

> mentioned.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But in essence what i want

> to

> > > say

> > > > > > is ''E''

> > > > > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > always

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean ''in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the'' as you have

> > > > > > interpreted.Labheshe is

> > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example.Karake

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus it can very well mean

> > > Varga of

> > > > > > > > Shukra and

> > > > > > > > > > > > Mars-

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > six vargas or one varga.(Not

> > > > > lordship)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra -(There) In the second

> > > from

> > > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga or Vargas of Venus and

> > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now why should we need two

> > > > > > qualifiesrs for

> > > > > > > > > > > > destination

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (1)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from karakamsha 2)in the

> vargas

> > > > > of?)-

> > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > we had

> > > > > > > > > > > > another

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your interpretation is

> > > right.That

> > > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > will

> > > > > > > > > > > > answer

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > question -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who is in the vargas of ?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly - Swamshad dhane

> > > Shukrar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Swamshad dhane is already

> > > pointing

> > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > destination-

> > > > > > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > need

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > another ''in the'' vargas

> of.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say

> in

> > > the

> > > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > > from

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > karakamsha if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mars and venus are

> present,it

> > > fits

> > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammatically.Moreover

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i had

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentioned rashi lordship

> without

> > > > > > planetary

> > > > > > > > > > link

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (placement/amsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is too general.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In

> > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40> <%

> > > 40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> 40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > > 40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > > > > > 40>,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I may be wrong but

> the " E " by

> > > > > itself

> > > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > point

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > word Shadvarga indicating

> 6

> > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > group

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (though it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more than one unit) and

> > > > > so " Varge " ,

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > singular is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " E " means " in " . I would be

> > > happy

> > > > > if

> > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > example

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of " Varge "

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plural

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can be given.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not at all think that

> > > > > Vargaka

> > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > singular and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargake

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge is plural, at all.

> Both

> > > the

> > > > > > > > manner of

> > > > > > > > > > > > using

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > indicates singular. it is

> no

> > > use

> > > > > > > > projecting

> > > > > > > > > > > > what is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clearly

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saptami

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vibhakti and singular as

> > > being a

> > > > > > plural

> > > > > > > > > > word. If

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dvivachana it may

> > > > > become " VargyoH "

> > > > > > > > > > or " VargeSu "

> > > > > > > > > > > > (for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bahuvachan)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge. Perhaps some

> Sanskrit

> > > > > > scholar on

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > list

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > comment

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on this.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, much as I would like

> it to

> > > > > > resolve,

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > issue

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > remains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unresolved.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will give you a

> relevant

> > > > > > example to

> > > > > > > > > > explain

> > > > > > > > > > > > how

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VarGE

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > context of plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna Shad-VargaKE - Is

> > > > > pointing

> > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > all

> > > > > > > > > > > > vargas -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plural.You

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > may

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > note

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that the grammatical

> ending

> > > is

> > > > > > > > with ''E''

> > > > > > > > > > > > showing

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plurals

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expressed with such an

> > > ending.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now from

> Vrishamsha''Ka''

> > > and

> > > > > > Tulamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > example we

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > conclude

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VargaKA and VarGA can be

> > > used

> > > > > for

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > purpose in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ekavachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > singular form and

> VargaKE

> > > and

> > > > > > VarGE

> > > > > > > > can be

> > > > > > > > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bahuvachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plural form.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope this may help us

> in

> > > > > > resolving

> > > > > > > > our

> > > > > > > > > > > > issue.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------

> ----

> > > ---

> > > > > ---

> > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this

> > > incoming

> > > > > > > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Checked by AVG Free

> Edition.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus

> > > > > Database:

> > > > > > > > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this

> > > > > message

> > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > been

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------

> ----

> > > ---

> > > > > ---

> > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this

> incoming

> > > > > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus

> > > Database:

> > > > > > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this

> message

> > > > > have

> > > > > > been

> > > > > > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------

> ----

> > > ---

> > > > > ---

> > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

> > > > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus

> Database:

> > > > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message

> > > have

> > > > > been

> > > > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---

> ----

> > > ---

> > > > > ---

> > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

> message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message

> have

> > > been

> > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------

> ----

> > > ---

> > > > > ---

> > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have

> been

> > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----------

> ----

> > > ---

> > > > > ---

> > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > 269.10.2/890 -

> > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------

> ----

> > > ---

> > > > > ---

> > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> 269.10.2/890 -

> > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > -------------------

> ----

> > > --

> > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/890 -

> > > Release

> > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeep,

 

Why should Rashi drishtis be graded by Jaimini or Parashara? Any reason?

That " drishties are graded and not partial " , is the view of PVR? Does he

think that drishtis have t be graded for rashi drishti? I would doubt that.

 

It is no use insisting that only graded graha drishtis must be

considered because one thinks that is right and throw out rashi drishtis

on the one hand and then go on and quote Jaimini when it suits an

argument on the other, or Parashara for that matter.

 

By the way there is a difference between Sanmukha and Parshva drishti in

rashi drishti so you have classification within classification that you

are seeking, right there, within the Rashi drishtis.

 

I have already made my personal opinion clear and have no reason to

revise the same. At the same time, I do not think I am of an elevated

stature, in the realm of astrology, enough to say that what other

learned had said must be wrong if it does not coincide with my views.

 

Saravali does not state what is wrong, it is your interpretation of the

shloka that is different from the " Kantimati " commentary on " Saravali "

that makes it so.

 

Chandrashekhar.

 

 

 

vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>

> I feel the drishtis are graded and not partial drishtis.Poorna

> drishti is mentioned.

>

> Kindly help me with the shloka in BPHS or Jaimini sutra pointing to

> grading o Rashi drishti.

>

> Shri PVR Rao has the same view.

>

> Now as it is graha drishti,and as you do not accept aspects as a rule

> in general in varga chakras -how can this yoga happen is the

> crux.This it will solve all our issues,unless you want to change your

> opinion on graha drishtis within Varga chakra.Thus as far as i am

> concerned one answer from you will atleast enable both of us to reach

> a conclusion.If you change your opinion then it is your view and i

> respect that.

>

> Now Trimishamsha shloka is ending(not chakra) bforeour shloka and

> sage is talking about aspect between planets,Lagna belonging to

> Shukra and Lagnas amsha falling within Ghata rashi and shukra and

> Saturn undergoing exchange in amsha.Do we need another example to see

> how differen aspects are studied together.Where is Trimshamsha chakra

> here.If Saravali is wrong too,then i cannot say anything.

>

> Respect

> Pradeep

> -- In

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > The partial drishtis are graded in different strengths in the

> shloka

> > that you have quoted. I fail to see how the interpretation of this

> > shloka puts an end to aspects in Vargas ,and how does it prove that

> > rashi drishti is not to be considered as claimed by you.

> >

> > Why should the shubha grahas have only graded drishti and not Rashi

> > drishti? There is nothing to support that premise in the shlokas

> from

> > Brihat Jataka talking about aspects in Trimshamshas.

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > I thought you were aware of where that shloka is from.

> > > It is present in Rajayogadhyaya and came into picture during my

> > > debate with shri PVR Rao.

> > > This shloka was debated as ,interpretation of this shloka will

> bring

> > > to end all doubts regarding vargamshas.

> > > It is relevant to our discussion as you have mentioned shubha

> grahas

> > > aspecting Lagnamsha,and lagnamsha i one among the shadvargas of

> Lagna.

> > >

> > > Now you may kindly say,how this has to be interpreted ,as rashi

> > > drishti is ruled out in this case.

> > >

> > > I have no problems with Rashi drishti.But as you see in this case

> > > grades are being mentioned.

> > >

> > > Regsrding the shlokas(navamsha/trimshamsha),i did not have time

> > > yesterday in the night.Thus i have posted you the shlokas,withfull

> > > explanation and refernces.Kindly see them.

> > >

> > > Respect

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > Do you mean to say that Parashara says that in connection with

> > > > Meshaamshe etc.? I doubt that shloka exists in the karakamsha

> > > adhyaaya,

> > > > but of course, I could be wrong.

> > > >

> > > > I asked you whether you accept the rashi drishtis that are

> > > mentioned by

> > > > Parashara and Jaimini or not? If Dashaaadhyaayi interprets the

> > > shlokas

> > > > on navamsha and Trimshamshas from Brihat Jataka, why not give

> what

> > > it says?

> > > >

> > > > You have given your interpretation of how amshakas should be

> > > > interpreted, but failed to address the queries. May I know why?

> > > >

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > >

> > > > > Purna drishte Purna Yogam Ardha Drishte ardhameva cha

> > > > > Pada drishte Padayogamiti gyeyam kramat phalam.

> > > > >

> > > > > Is mentioned and hence the aspects are not about Rashi

> drishti.

> > > > >

> > > > > Now as i have mentioned in the past,though the name is

> > > > > dashadhyayi,the author covers shlokas,from most of the

> chapters as

> > > > > and when he finds some interrelationship or link.This i

> consider

> > > as a

> > > > > real blessing.Now how amshakas are interpreted,has been

> > > > > demonstrated ,for numerous contexts,and thus forming a

> guideline

> > > for

> > > > > other shloka interpretations.

> > > > >

> > > > > I will see the shlokas,and will write back.

> > > > >

> > > > > Respect

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Transits are to be seen no doubt from the rasis synonymous

> to

> > > the

> > > > > > navamsha rasis, but when it is sphuta it is of the

> navamshesha

> > > and

> > > > > not

> > > > > > the rasis. There is a difference between the two.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I have already said I do not consider aspects in D-charts,

> > > unless

> > > > > > specifically mentioned in some yogas, and also that barring

> > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > charts, in other varga charts I look at rashi aspects. That

> does

> > > > > not

> > > > > > mean I should close my eyes to what is written in other

> > > respected

> > > > > texts.

> > > > > > That only means I look at charts from a different angle.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > There is nothing in the lagna shadvargake shloka to indicate

> > > graded

> > > > > > aspects and so it does not rule out rashi drishti at all.

> Ans

> > > since

> > > > > you

> > > > > > have quoted both Parashara and Jaimini you should know that

> > > rashi

> > > > > > drishtis are valid in Parashara too and exclusively so in

> > > Jaimini.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Your translation and mine of the shlokas differ and that is

> why

> > > > > there is

> > > > > > no agreement. If you expect Dashaadhyaayi to give divisional

> > > charts

> > > > > and

> > > > > > their interpretations, that is not possible as Varaha

> Mihira on

> > > > > whose

> > > > > > work it is only a commentary does not speak of it and it is

> > > > > commentary

> > > > > > on only 10 of the 18 adhayaayas of Brihat jataka. If you

> read

> > > > > Brihat

> > > > > > jataka carefully, you will see reference o aspects in

> > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > there.

> > > > > > Since you have many times claimed superiority of

> Dashaadhyaayi

> > > over

> > > > > many

> > > > > > of the more ancient and respected classics, I find it

> strange

> > > as to

> > > > > why

> > > > > > you do not want to accept what is said in the original text

> on

> > > > > which

> > > > > > Dashaadhyaayi is only a commentary and that too on 10

> adhyaayas

> > > as

> > > > > the

> > > > > > name suggests (that does not, of course, make it any less

> > > > > respectable).

> > > > > > There are many references to planets being placed in a

> navamsha,

> > > > > which

> > > > > > is not identical with the rasi whose name the navamsha

> enjoys,

> > > and

> > > > > the

> > > > > > results from them in the 21st adhyaaya. How do you map back

> > > such a

> > > > > > navamsha to the rasi and what should be the logic? You also

> see

> > > > > > reference to Guru occupying own Trimshamsha, irrespective of

> > > rasi

> > > > > in the

> > > > > > same adhayaaya. There are too many references like this to

> > > question

> > > > > the

> > > > > > theory that the amshas need always be mapped back to

> identical

> > > rasi

> > > > > in

> > > > > > rasi chart.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Could you tell why this reluctance to accept Varaha Mihira?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Meshamshe, Vrishamshe Transit results can be seen from

> Mesha

> > > and

> > > > > > > Vrishabha rashis.Thus you are aware of what i am

> > > saying.Moreover

> > > > > we

> > > > > > > have seen paparkshe.we have seen meshadi rashige

> swamshe.we

> > > have

> > > > > seen

> > > > > > > that bhrigwonkaraka varge ,as per your understanding

> cannot

> > > > > satisfy

> > > > > > > both mars and venus.The very next shloka is talking about

> > > mars and

> > > > > > > venus yuti or aspecting.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Now we can forget all these as you are not williing to

> accept

> > > > > > > rashi,riksha etc as valid reasoning.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > We have seen Lagna shadvargake shloka with aspectual

> > > > > grades,proving

> > > > > > > that they ae not rashi drishtis.Couple of days back and

> many

> > > > > times in

> > > > > > > the past,i have heard from you that you don't support

> aspects

> > > in

> > > > > > > Vargas.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > If you still have the sam views,then to understand

> shadvargake

> > > > > > > shloka,we have to see planets aspecting lagna in ''six

> > > charts''.As

> > > > > > > lagna can fall in any rashi,you have to accept aspects

> fully

> > > in

> > > > > all

> > > > > > > Varga charts.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > This is relevant to our discussion as lagnamsha is also

> part

> > > of

> > > > > > > shadvargas of lagna.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > As you are aware ,the BPHS translator too has expressed

> his

> > > > > concern.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > How could I think shadvarga of lagna is shadvarga of

> rashi?

> > > > > Lagna

> > > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > > point on the eastern horizon at the time of birth of a

> > > jataka.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > There is no dispute about what is lagnamsha and what is

> > > > > karakamsha

> > > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > all. At the same time when reference is to a graha

> falling

> > > in

> > > > > > > Lagnamsha

> > > > > > > > it refers to the navamsha rasi (or sector ruled by one

> of

> > > the

> > > > > rasis

> > > > > > > of a

> > > > > > > > planet, barring Sun and Chandra if you like it that

> way) in

> > > > > which

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > lagnamsha falls. Now that being so where is the shubha

> graha

> > > > > > > supposed to

> > > > > > > > fall in the shloka I quoted? Same with the Shubh graha

> in

> > > > > > > Karakamsha and

> > > > > > > > needing drishti of shubha graha on it. It is easy to say

> > > that

> > > > > > > these

> > > > > > > > need to be seen in rasi, but for lack of the reference

> to

> > > rasi,

> > > > > > > there,

> > > > > > > > there is no reason to assume that it does not refer to

> > > navamsha

> > > > > > > rasi.

> > > > > > > > The reference to grahas

> in " Meshaamshe " , " Vrishabhaamshe "

> > > etc

> > > > > are

> > > > > > > quite

> > > > > > > > clear, in BPHS.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Of course Yes,you are correct.Varga is found for this

> > > bindu

> > > > > and in

> > > > > > > > > the case of planets their degree decides.The rest you

> have

> > > > > stated

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > also as per definition.My point was made under the

> > > impression

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > you have a view that,shadvarga of Lagna is shadvarga

> of a

> > > > > > > rashi.If so

> > > > > > > > > it is not.Shad varga is found for Lagna bindu.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > The full Rashi/Kshethra in which Lagna bindu falls

> > > becomes its

> > > > > > > first

> > > > > > > > > Varga.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > The Translation is entiterely correct and no one can

> > > > > > > contradict.This

> > > > > > > > > is similar to one planet aspecting shadvargas of

> lagna.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Lagnamsha is already covered in the shadvargas of

> > > > > > > lagna.Karakamsha is

> > > > > > > > > similar too.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Now let us see it on a chart.Karkamasha is in

> > > Dhanu.Jupiter is

> > > > > > > placed

> > > > > > > > > in Mithuna Rashi.Shubha graha is aspecting Karakamsha

> > > Lagna

> > > > > > > > > (Rashi).Similarly Lagnamsha.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > You are already aware of the rules for aspects.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I see your point of view. anyway even within

> shadvargas

> > > we

> > > > > look

> > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > degree of a planet falling within a certain span of

> > > degrees

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > particular bindu.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I agree that rashi is a Varga and my question is if

> one

> > > can

> > > > > > > look at

> > > > > > > > > > aspects in one Varga why not in other Vargas? I am

> sure

> > > you

> > > > > know

> > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > personally I use navamsha to find only the strength

> of

> > > > > grahas,

> > > > > > > but

> > > > > > > > > there

> > > > > > > > > > is no reason to rule out aspects in Navamshas or

> other

> > > > > charts

> > > > > > > > > totally.

> > > > > > > > > > One of the raj yogas mentioned by Parashara talks of

> > > aspect

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > shubha

> > > > > > > > > > grahas on the karakamsha and Lagnamsha which should

> > > also be

> > > > > > > > > tenanted by

> > > > > > > > > > Shubha grahas, leaving no doubt as to where the

> aspects

> > > are

> > > > > to

> > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > seen.

> > > > > > > > > > And for the record the translation to that effect

> is by

> > > an

> > > > > > > eminent

> > > > > > > > > > astrologer who was Professor of astrology in Banaras

> > > Hindu

> > > > > > > > > University.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Lagna as a bindu was mentioned for driving home

> the

> > > > > shadvarga

> > > > > > > > > > > calculations,if any members were having doubts.For

> > > > > shadvarga

> > > > > > > > > > > calculation of planets too we need the bindu or

> > > degree of

> > > > > a

> > > > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > > > > within a rashi, as you are aware.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > We have to look at Rashis.This is so because Rashi

> > > (one 30

> > > > > > > degree

> > > > > > > > > > > sector ) is the first varga.As this Varga is

> > > synonymous

> > > > > with

> > > > > > > Bhava

> > > > > > > > > > > houses are analysed w.r to Rashis.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > If lagna is a bindu a you propose, and nothing

> more,

> > > > > then

> > > > > > > how

> > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > > > indicate an entire rasi? Now if this is

> correct, and

> > > > > > > technically

> > > > > > > > > > > it is,

> > > > > > > > > > > > then by your reckoning there is no need to look

> at

> > > rasis

> > > > > > > too. Is

> > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > what you mean to say?

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > If shadvargas are not related to the portion

> > > falling in

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > lagna

> > > > > > > > > > > rasis,

> > > > > > > > > > > > which holds the degree of lagna Madhya, then it

> > > appears

> > > > > we

> > > > > > > must

> > > > > > > > > ask

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > sages to redefine Vargas. I doubt they need our

> > > advise.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > There was a purpose.I just wanted to explain

> it

> > > to the

> > > > > > > > > members if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > some of them are not sure on what shadvarga of

> > > lagna

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > how it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > is calculated.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > As you have said Vargas are divisions of a

> > > rashi.But

> > > > > > > > > shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna is not the Vargas falling in Lagna.Here

> > > lagna is

> > > > > > > not a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > rashi,but a bindu.Vargas are found from a

> > > degree.The

> > > > > > > degree

> > > > > > > > > of a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > planet or degree of lagna.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > As you may know we do notneed six charts to

> > > dtermine

> > > > > > > > > shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > lagna.All we need is the degree of lagna and

> the

> > > rashi

> > > > > > > rising.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us take an example.Lagna is at 11 degrees

> in

> > > > > dhanu.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us find the shadvargas of Lagna with th

> help

> > > of

> > > > > rising

> > > > > > > > > rashi

> > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > degree.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > 1st Varga - The Rashi in which Lagna bindu is

> > > > > falling -

> > > > > > > Dhanu

> > > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd Varga - The Hora in which Lagna bindu is

> > > falling -

> > > > > As

> > > > > > > 11

> > > > > > > > > > > degrees

> > > > > > > > > > > > > falls in the 1st half of dhanu - Surya Hora

> > > > > > > > > > > > > 3rd Varga - The drekkana in which Lagna bindu

> is

> > > > > falling -

> > > > > > > As

> > > > > > > > > 11

> > > > > > > > > > > > > degrees falls in the 2nd 1/3rd of dhanu -

> > > Drekkana is

> > > > > > > Mesha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > 4th Varga - As 11 degrees falls in the 3rd

> > > > > > > saptamsha ,Lagna

> > > > > > > > > > > saptamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > is Kumbha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Similraly - Lagna navamsha is Karka,Lagna

> > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > dhanu.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus the purpose of whole exercise was to say

> that

> > > > > when

> > > > > > > we say

> > > > > > > > > > > > > shadvargas of Lagna or Mars,it does not mean

> the

> > > > > rashis

> > > > > > > owned

> > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna or Mars.But the Rashis on towhich they

> are

> > > > > > > placed,having

> > > > > > > > > > > > > hora,drekkana etc etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas of Mars in the 2nd Rashi from

> karakamsha

> > > too

> > > > > is no

> > > > > > > > > > > differet.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > There are many meanings,that is why Rashi is

> > > called as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kshethra /Riksha /havana etc.But i don't think

> > > sage

> > > > > will

> > > > > > > use

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > saword to represent something belonging to

> same

> > > class.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > For example sage will not use ''sva'' to mean

> 2nd

> > > as

> > > > > well

> > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > 3rd.Then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > we cannot interpret.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly Rashi and navamsha will not be

> > > represented

> > > > > > > using the

> > > > > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > > > word.Rashi/Kshethra/Riksha/Bhvana/Lagna etc

> are

> > > > > synonyms

> > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > ifthey

> > > > > > > > > > > > > are used for navamsha then what is the whole

> > > purpose

> > > > > > > behind

> > > > > > > > > > > defintion.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand sva was used for iems from

> > > different

> > > > > > > > > classes.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > This wasin mind while making such a

> statement.I

> > > will

> > > > > try

> > > > > > > my

> > > > > > > > > best

> > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > polish my style of writing.I accept my

> > > limitations in

> > > > > > > writing.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have not understood your question or the

> > > intent

> > > > > behind

> > > > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas are divisions, within a rasi, ruled

> by

> > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > grahas.

> > > > > > > > > > > So

> > > > > > > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > one wants t look at Vargas falling in lagna

> the

> > > shad

> > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > will

> > > > > > > > > > > > > mean

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the rasi equivalent occurring at lagna

> position

> > > in

> > > > > the 6

> > > > > > > > > > > divisional

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > charts of Rashi, Hora, Dreshkana, Navamsha,

> > > > > > > Dwaadashamsha

> > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamsha. Or at least this is what I have

> > > learnt.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sages did not use words in vain or context.

> I

> > > > > agree. But

> > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean they used the words to mean only one

> thing

> > > > > always.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I never said that the meaning can be

> changed to

> > > > > suit our

> > > > > > > > > > > > > convenience and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would request you not to attribute such

> > > > > sentiments to

> > > > > > > me.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > However I do say that word are used in

> different

> > > > > > > contexts to

> > > > > > > > > > > mean

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > different things, especially in Sanskrit

> texts

> > > of

> > > > > > > Jyotish. I

> > > > > > > > > > > have,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > just

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a few minutes back use of " Sva " with

> different

> > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > places by Varaha Mihira to you. I hope you

> do

> > > not

> > > > > also

> > > > > > > > > attribute

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > words that you attributed to me to the

> venerated

> > > > > Varaha

> > > > > > > > > Mihira.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar,.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pls tell me what you mean by shadvargas of

> > > > > lagna.How

> > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > find

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them.Do you go by ownership or placement

> > > > > > > > > > > > > (Rashi/navamsha/dwadshamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc).

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are shlokas in Varahamihiras text

> which

> > > > > > > > > says ,Okarkshe

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Purushamshakae.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which means in Ojarashi and Oja amsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As per me sages will not use any words

> out of

> > > > > > > context.If

> > > > > > > > > he

> > > > > > > > > > > wants

> > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > say amsha he will mention it.He will not

> use

> > > > > Rashi to

> > > > > > > > > mean as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > amsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ojarkshe is Oja Rashi.Similarly Paparkshe

> is

> > > Papa

> > > > > > > Rashi.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you want to say as per our conveninece

> we

> > > can

> > > > > > > change

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of riksha/rashi/bhavana/bhavas as navamsha

> > > then i

> > > > > > > cannot

> > > > > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anything.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can only respect your views.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will tell you why that happens. You

> begin

> > > with

> > > > > > > quoting

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then give a sutra from Jaimini as being

> > > said by

> > > > > > > > > Parashara.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Interpretation of sutras is not the

> easiest

> > > of

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > things,

> > > > > > > > > > > more

> > > > > > > > > > > > > so

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jaimini's Upadesha sutras. That the

> sutras

> > > use

> > > > > > > > > KaTaPaYaadi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > encryption

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > makes them even more difficult to

> > > interpret. I

> > > > > am

> > > > > > > sure

> > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > noticed

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this when Sreenadh interpreted the

> > > KaTaPaYaadi

> > > > > > > Varga in

> > > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > wrong

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fashion.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then there is your insistence to let

> > > Sanskrit

> > > > > > > grammar

> > > > > > > > > give

> > > > > > > > > > > a go

> > > > > > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that can make interpretation of a

> shloka or

> > > > > sutra

> > > > > > > fit

> > > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposition.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any of the Shodasha Vargas of a rasi

> can be

> > > > > > > referred to

> > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far as I know in astrology, when one

> talks

> > > of

> > > > > Varga,

> > > > > > > > > without

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > qualifying

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it, or Amshas that generally refers to

> > > navamsha

> > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dwadashaamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another reason that we can not agree, or

> > > seem to

> > > > > > > agree,

> > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reluctant to call a navamsha by the

> > > nomenclature

> > > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > rasi.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > makes it difficult to convey what I

> mean to

> > > say

> > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > English

> > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the language of the net and which both

> of us

> > > > > know.

> > > > > > > Now

> > > > > > > > > > > since you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > want to use the word Mesha navamsha as

> > > Mesha is

> > > > > a

> > > > > > > rashi

> > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > logic it can not be a navamsha, it

> becomes

> > > > > > > difficult to

> > > > > > > > > > > convey

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understand by the texts.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will like to draw your attention to

> the

> > > > > literal

> > > > > > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi. It means a heap and nothing more.

> In

> > > > > astrology

> > > > > > > > > since

> > > > > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > encompasses many stars that make up a

> > > nakshatra

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > 1/12th

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > division of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the zodiac is called a Rasi. Or at least

> > > this

> > > > > is my

> > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason of using the word rasi for the

> 1/12th

> > > > > > > division

> > > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > zodiac.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not agree that by Chandra in Guru

> > > Varga it

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > meant

> > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandra is being seen. To me we are

> talking

> > > > > about is

> > > > > > > > > whether

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandra is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > falling in the Varga of Guru in which

> ever

> > > rasi

> > > > > he

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > occupying.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Navamsha we see whether Chandra is

> occupying

> > > > > Pisces

> > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sagittarius

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > navamsha. I also do not agree that

> there are

> > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > Chandra

> > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of any

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > planet for that matter. The 16 Vargas

> that

> > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > > talks

> > > > > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that of a Rasi, beginning from the Rashi

> > > itself.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the Vargas are not owned by different

> > > > > planets,

> > > > > > > pray

> > > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the sage

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tell us to see occupation of a friend,

> own

> > > etc.

> > > > > > > Varga to

> > > > > > > > > > > assess

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > strength of a planet in the Varga

> concerned?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have interacted with many astrologers

> of

> > > > > > > yesteryears

> > > > > > > > > (with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > respect to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > my age group) and have never found them

> > > > > claiming the

> > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only lagna and planets.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you insist that sage Parashara gave

> the

> > > SU.

> > > > > 52.-

> > > > > > > > > " Tatra

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bhrigwongaraka

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > varge paradarikaha " , perhaps you are

> > > referring

> > > > > to

> > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > edition

> > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BPHS

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that I do not have. However I do have

> that

> > > in

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > umpteen

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > texts on Jaimini that I do have in my

> > > library.

> > > > > And

> > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > way,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > scholars have interpreted that to mean

> 9th

> > > from

> > > > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the 2nd.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not agree that a graha can

> > > simultaneously

> > > > > > > occupy

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars, simultaneously, as is

> being

> > > > > > > suggested

> > > > > > > > > > > whether in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in any of the Vargas. It could only

> occupy

> > > one

> > > > > or

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > other.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have seen you arguing in favor of

> looking

> > > at

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > Shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grahas Venus and Mars. I would like you

> to

> > > look

> > > > > at

> > > > > > > all

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > six

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > charts

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whose Vargas together are referred as

> > > > > Shadvargas and

> > > > > > > > > try to

> > > > > > > > > > > find

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > out

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whether they do indeed contain the 6

> Vargas

> > > of

> > > > > Venus

> > > > > > > > > and 6

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars. I am sure that you will find them

> to

> > > > > contain

> > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > 5

> > > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > each of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the grahas. Once you confirm this by

> > > looking at

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > 6

> > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > self,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tell me how one can look at Shadvargas

> of

> > > Venus

> > > > > or

> > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested to be the interpretation of

> the

> > > sutra

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > you are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > referring to.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You may also be interested to know that

> > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > talks

> > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > AK

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > falling in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Varga of Chandra, Mars or Venus also

> > > having

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > roving

> > > > > > > > > > > eye

> > > > > > > > > > > > > on

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wives. So the combination of Venus and

> Mars

> > > > > being

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > giving

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the roving eye for other's wives, that

> you

> > > are

> > > > > > > > > advancing as

> > > > > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > standalone

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > principle, may not, necessarily, be the

> way

> > > the

> > > > > sage

> > > > > > > > > looked

> > > > > > > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > their

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > interpretation.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Those were written by me.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am very dissappointed to see

> > > that ,inspite

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > repeating

> > > > > > > > > > > > > numerus

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > times,you are unable to get what i am

> > > saying.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not talking about rashis lorded

> by

> > > > > shukra or

> > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > here.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > am

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > talking about the shadvargas vargas of

> > > mars

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > shukra.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pls tell me what is the meaning of

> > > shadvargas

> > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > simply

> > > > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lagna.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the rashi in which lagna is

> > > placed.The

> > > > > > > > > navamshaka of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna,Trimshamshaka of Lagna etc.Can

> we

> > > see

> > > > > any

> > > > > > > > > lordship

> > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > say.Lagna does not own any rashi.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly when we say vargas of

> Venus -It

> > > > > means

> > > > > > > Rashi

> > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > Venus,Hora,navamshaka,drekkana,trimshamshaka

> > > > > etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shadvarga is never the rashi owned by

> a

> > > > > > > planet.Then

> > > > > > > > > Lagna

> > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > never

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have shadvarga.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say,Chandra in

> > > Guru

> > > > > > > Varga - We

> > > > > > > > > > > are not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > seeing

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the shadvarga of Guru,but that of

> > > chandra.Is

> > > > > > > chandra

> > > > > > > > > > > placed in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guru

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rashi?Is Chandra navamshaka in Guru

> > > Rashi.Is

> > > > > > > Chandra

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamshaka in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guru Rashi etc is what we check.If so

> > > chandras

> > > > > > > vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > fall in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > guru

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashis or we say chandra is in

> guruvargas.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the same reason schoplars of

> > > yesteryears

> > > > > > > always

> > > > > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for our natal Lagna and Planets.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand you are taking them

> as

> > > > > owned by

> > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > planet.Every

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > shadvarga that derive is like

> that.You may

> > > > > check

> > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > shri

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Narasimha,how he is deriving it for

> his

> > > > > software.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the same reason Bhrigu and Angara

> can

> > > have

> > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > together

> > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rashi which is 2nd from

> Karakamsha.Sage

> > > > > clearly

> > > > > > > talks

> > > > > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vargas from both.Moreover the next

> shloka

> > > is

> > > > > > > talking

> > > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus together or aspecting the 2nd

> from

> > > > > > > karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we go by your

> > > > > explanation,we

> > > > > > > > > have to

> > > > > > > > > > > opt

> > > > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just one among shukra or Mars which

> is not

> > > > > > > > > proper.Their

> > > > > > > > > > > Joint

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > influence creates sexual drive.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I request you to kindly read this with

> > > care.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rspect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> 40>,

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The below remarks are not from my

> mail

> > > at

> > > > > all.

> > > > > > > I do

> > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > know

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think I would write that. I am sure

> you

> > > know

> > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > my

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > style

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of writing at all.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " >From my experience -Mars + Venus

> > > creates

> > > > > > > certin

> > > > > > > > > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why

> are

> > > you

> > > > > > > going

> > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > owned by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just one of them and that too

> without a

> > > > > > > planetary

> > > > > > > > > link

> > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > worrying me.Shri Rath has translated

> > > so,i

> > > > > > > agree.But

> > > > > > > > > i

> > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will

> > > definitely

> > > > > > > correct

> > > > > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > benfit

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of jyotish community. "

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As to why I said they could not be

> > > having

> > > > > their

> > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > together in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi or Bhava does not need any

> deeper

> > > > > > > explanation.

> > > > > > > > > If

> > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > looking

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at the 2nd from Karakamsha in the

> rasi

> > > > > chart,

> > > > > > > as you

> > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > right, you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > could not have both Mesha and

> Vrishabha

> > > or

> > > > > Tula

> > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Vrishchika

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd from the Karakamsha, is that

> not so?

> > > > > > > Similarly

> > > > > > > > > if in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the 2nd from Karakamsha is to be

> seen,

> > > the

> > > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > > > could be

> > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > navamshas.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I though you meant so.Because in

> > > > > subsequent

> > > > > > > lines

> > > > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > see

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and Karakamsha being used for the

> same

> > > > > > > > > purpose.But if

> > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there are other places where

> swamsha

> > > is

> > > > > used

> > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagnamsha ,then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i can trust you if you can point

> me to

> > > > > that.

> > > > > > > This

> > > > > > > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problem and in no way it will

> affect

> > > us.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars can ofcourse have

> their

> > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > in a

> > > > > > > > > > > single

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashi or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bhava.Venus can have navamsha

> > > there,Mars

> > > > > can

> > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there,Venus can have Trimshamsha

> > > > > there,Mars

> > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there,they both can have drekkana

> > > there

> > > > > etc

> > > > > > > etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus sage is talking about Bhrigu

> and

> > > > > Angara

> > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > (as

> > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > identified gramattically) having

> varga

> > > > > there

> > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > it is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > very

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > much

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you note the next line -Sage is

> > > talking

> > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > joining or aspecting the 2nd from

> > > > > Karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From my experience -Mars + Venus

> > > creates

> > > > > > > certin

> > > > > > > > > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced

> this.Why

> > > are

> > > > > you

> > > > > > > going

> > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > owned by just one of them and

> that too

> > > > > > > without a

> > > > > > > > > > > planetary

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > link is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really worrying me.Shri Rath has

> > > > > translated

> > > > > > > so,i

> > > > > > > > > > > > > agree.But i

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will

> > > > > definitely

> > > > > > > > > correct

> > > > > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > benfit of jyotish community.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am surprised as to why you say

> > > so.That

> > > > > they

> > > > > > > > > cannot

> > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > together.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pardeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> 40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > > 40>,

> > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have never said that I do not

> > > think

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different where the context

> demands

> > > so.

> > > > > At

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > > > time I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammar can be put to rest to

> in the

> > > > > name of

> > > > > > > > > > > context,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sound

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course if you want contextual

> > > > > translation

> > > > > > > > > only,

> > > > > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > certainly say that the " Meshadi

> > > raashige

> > > > > > > > > swaamshe "

> > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > always be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > translated as " Falling in Mesha

> > > > > navamsha in

> > > > > > > > > Mesha

> > > > > > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc. " .

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way " Tatra

> Bhrigwonkaraka

> > > > > Varge " ,

> > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mention, does

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean varga of both Venus and

> mars,

> > > but

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus OR

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > due to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the grammar only. varga of two

> > > planets

> > > > > can

> > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > fall

> > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bhava/amsha/rasi whether in

> rasi or

> > > > > > > Navamsha or

> > > > > > > > > any

> > > > > > > > > > > > > other

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Grammatically,what you are

> saying

> > > is

> > > > > also

> > > > > > > > > true.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But Jyotish defintions play a

> > > > > preceding

> > > > > > > role

> > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > choosing

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammatical meaning.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example one meaning of

> > > > > labhe ,Swamshe

> > > > > > > etc

> > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 11th

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But if we go by that we will

> > > > > definitely

> > > > > > > > > translate

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamshe in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > meshadi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashige as ''in

> Swamsha'',thereby

> > > > > > > translating

> > > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > full

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart.This as you too

> agree,then

> > > > > cannot

> > > > > > > pass

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > test,of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > subsequent shlokas.I

> understand

> > > gladly

> > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > too

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > agree that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha and karakamsha are the

> > > same.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So the context decides

> > > plural/singular

> > > > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > necessarily

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the ''E''

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as you have rightly mentioned.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But in essence what i want to

> say

> > > > > is ''E''

> > > > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > always

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean ''in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the'' as you have

> > > > > interpreted.Labheshe is

> > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example.Karake

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus it can very well mean

> Varga

> > > of

> > > > > > > Shukra and

> > > > > > > > > > > Mars-

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > six vargas or one varga.(Not

> > > lordship)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra -(There) In the second

> from

> > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga or Vargas of Venus and

> Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now why should we need two

> > > > > qualifiesrs for

> > > > > > > > > > > destination

> > > > > > > > > > > > > (1)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from karakamsha 2)in the

> vargas

> > > of?)-

> > > > > if

> > > > > > > we had

> > > > > > > > > > > another

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your interpretation is

> right.That

> > > > > planet

> > > > > > > will

> > > > > > > > > > > answer

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > question -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who is in the vargas of ?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly - Swamshad dhane

> Shukrar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Swamshad dhane is already

> > > pointing to

> > > > > > > > > destination-

> > > > > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > need

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > another ''in the'' vargas of.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say in

> > > the 2nd

> > > > > > > from

> > > > > > > > > > > > > karakamsha if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mars and venus are present,it

> > > fits in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammatically.Moreover

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i had

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentioned rashi lordship

> without

> > > > > planetary

> > > > > > > > > link

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (placement/amsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is too general.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In

> > >

> <%40> <%

> 40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> 40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > > 40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > > > > 40>,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I may be wrong but the " E "

> by

> > > itself

> > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > point

> > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > word Shadvarga indicating 6

> > > Vargas

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > group

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (though it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more than one unit) and

> > > so " Varge " ,

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > singular is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " E " means " in " . I would be

> > > happy if

> > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > example

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of " Varge "

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plural

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can be given.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not at all think that

> > > Vargaka

> > > > > or

> > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > singular and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargake

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge is plural, at all.

> Both

> > > the

> > > > > > > manner of

> > > > > > > > > > > using

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > indicates singular. it is

> no use

> > > > > > > projecting

> > > > > > > > > > > what is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clearly

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saptami

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vibhakti and singular as

> being a

> > > > > plural

> > > > > > > > > word. If

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dvivachana it may

> > > become " VargyoH "

> > > > > > > > > or " VargeSu "

> > > > > > > > > > > (for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bahuvachan)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge. Perhaps some Sanskrit

> > > > > scholar on

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > list

> > > > > > > > > > > > > would

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > comment

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on this.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, much as I would like it

> to

> > > > > resolve,

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > issue

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > remains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unresolved.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will give you a relevant

> > > > > example to

> > > > > > > > > explain

> > > > > > > > > > > how

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VarGE

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > context of plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna Shad-VargaKE - Is

> > > pointing

> > > > > to

> > > > > > > all

> > > > > > > > > > > vargas -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plural.You

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > may

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > note

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that the grammatical

> ending is

> > > > > > > with ''E''

> > > > > > > > > > > showing

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plurals

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expressed with such an

> ending.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now from Vrishamsha''Ka''

> and

> > > > > Tulamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > example we

> > > > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > conclude

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VargaKA and VarGA can be

> used

> > > for

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > > > purpose in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ekavachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > singular form and VargaKE

> and

> > > > > VarGE

> > > > > > > can be

> > > > > > > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bahuvachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plural form.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope this may help us in

> > > > > resolving

> > > > > > > our

> > > > > > > > > > > issue.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this

> > > incoming

> > > > > > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Checked by AVG Free

> Edition.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus

> > > Database:

> > > > > > > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this

> > > message

> > > > > have

> > > > > > > been

> > > > > > > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this

> incoming

> > > > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus

> Database:

> > > > > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this

> message

> > > have

> > > > > been

> > > > > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

> > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message

> have

> > > been

> > > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

> message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have

> been

> > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> 269.10.2/890 -

> > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > -----------------

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/890 -

> > > Release

> > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > ---------------------

> ----

> > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/890 -

> Release

> > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Anna,

Is that so? I found sudden spurt of activity on Occult healing list too,

of which I am also a member as it is run by one of my dear friends. So I

wanted to see whether there is elevation in number of posts on other

lists too.

 

Take care,

Chandrashekhar.

 

108ar wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar,

>

> I haven't noticed that, on other lists. This list was was badly

> spammed, with number of non-jyotish posts, unfortunatelly, which I

> don't consider as 'activity' at all!

> Warmest wishes,

> Anna

>

>

> Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46

> <chandrashekhar46%40.co.uk>> wrote:

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> If you think " ca " does not mean AND, in Sanskrit then there may not be

> any point in discussing this any further. And if translations of all

> other learned scholars are to be rejected in favour of Dashaadhyaayi,

> then there is no use discussing what Parashara said too as Dashaadhyaayi

> is a commentary on Brihat jataka.

>

> Personally, I do not think that only Dashaadhyaayi encompasses all the

> vedic astrological knowledge though it is one amongst the respected texts.

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >

> > If you remember our first discussion,which is present in the

> > archives,you were only mentioning about shukra and saturn in

> > paraspara amsha and aspecting each other.You had added that these are

> > aspects in Trimshamsha chakra.

> >

> > I had then quoted the second line which points to Lagna being that of

> > Shukra and its navamsha in ghata rashi.

> >

> > For which your reply was we are looking into different texts.

> >

> > You have only quoted the 2nd line from Saravali.

> >

> > The full shloka in Saravali is as follows -

> > Shukra Sithau yadi paraspara bhaga samsthau

> > shaukre cha drishti pathagavudaye ghatamshe

> >

> > Thus the first line does not contain any aspect mentioned.How can we

> > say that the first line is stand alone.Do you say if Shukra and

> > Saturn are in each others amsha a lady will behave like this.

> > The second line makes it complete.The lagna should be that of

> > shukra,saturn and venus should aspect each other,and lagnamsha should

> > fall in Ghatamsha.

> >

> > Thus Dashadhyayi kara is crystal clear on what Saravali is

> > saying.Atleast for this shloka i feel there is no ambiguity needed.

> >

> > Respect

> > Pradeep

> >

> > Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > If Dashaadhyaayi thinks Saravali is a standard text to rely upon (

> > as

> > > you have quoted a reference therein quoting Saravali to support

> > some

> > > interpretation) why say that other concepts in Saravali are wrong?

> > > Saravali says " Shaukre ca drishtipathagaavudaye ghataamshe " etc.

> > > indicating the necessity of exchange of amshas and mutual aspect

> > between

> > > Shukra and Shani as concurrent condition for the first yoga to

> > fructify.

> > > And then goes on to say that if for a lagna having rasi of Shukra

> > and

> > > navamsha of Shani similar results would ensue. GhataaMshe has been

> > > interpreted as the amsha of Shani and not merely amsha of Kumbha by

> > many

> > > translators.

> > >

> > > I can not comment on the interpretation of Dashaadhyaayikar of the

> > > shloka but the shloka from Brihat Jataka that I have also says

> > > " driksamsthaavasitasito parasparaamshe shoke vaa yadi ghata

> > > raashisambhavoMshaH. " followed by the next line that I did not find

> > > necessary to quote as it does not talk about the yoga but only the

> > > results, which you have already quoted and I felt may not be

> > necessary

> > > to post on line.

> > >

> > > That there are two distinct yogas is also not new to translators of

> > > Brihat jataka. Since you accept that the first line does say about

> > > occupation of each others amsha AND aspect on each other is indeed

> > > covered in the first line, the reluctance to accept aspects in

> > specific

> > > cases is something that I am not able to understand.

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > >

> > > > I can clearly understand your position.Especially as you have

> > > > said,the texts that we are referring to are different.Here comes

> > the

> > > > importance of Dashadhyayi.After my explanation you can also see

> > that

> > > > it is not only dashadhyayi ,but Saravali as well is having the

> > same

> > > > opinion on the shloka explained below.

> > > >

> > > > As i have mentioned yesterday,dashadhyayi is not covering just the

> > > > first 10 chapters as the name suggests.For example let me take a

> > > > chapter towards the end ,chapter 22-Sthree Jataka Adhyaya.

> > > >

> > > > Thalakkulathu Govinda Bhattathiri has given interpretations,for

> > all

> > > > the shlokas from 1 through 16,except shloka 13, while interpreting

> > > > chapters 1 through 10. Shloka 13 as you can see is pretty straight

> > > > forward.

> > > >

> > > > Now let us take the shloka which as per you is referring

> > > > to ''Trimshamsha Chakra'' with aspects therein.Firstly the results

> > > > for planets being placed in rashis belonging to Mesha onwards,and

> > > > within that Trimshamshas belonging to Mars onwards is explained

> > and

> > > > ends by shloka 6.

> > > >

> > > > Now let us take

> > > >

> > > > ''Driksamstha VasithaSithau Parasparamshe

> > > > Shaukre Va yadi Ghata Rashi Sambhavomsha''

> > > > Next 2 lines explains the result.

> > > >

> > > > As per you,there is only a reference regarding Venus and Saturn

> > > > aspecting each other and also in each others Amsha.This is covered

> > > > in the first line.My worry is where has the second line gone in

> > the

> > > > text that you are having.Either it was not interpreted or it was

> > > > inadvertently got missed out from printing.

> > > >

> > > > Now Dashadhyayi says -

> > > >

> > > > Driksamsthau ithyadi Yoga dvayam - Two Yogas.First one is

> > > > corresponding to the first line as we have seen.

> > > >

> > > > Shaukre Rashau Yadi Kumbhamshe Udethi ..Thatha dvitheeyam - the

> > > > second.Meaning ,The Ascendant should be either Tula or Vrishabha

> > and

> > > > it should have Kumbhamsha(Kumbha is Ghata - Ghata Rashi

> > > > Sambhavomsha).

> > > >

> > > > Now the author says, as per some these two can be taken as one

> > yoga

> > > > as well(Saravali too says so).

> > > >

> > > > Parasparamshagatha Vasitha Sithou Paraspara Drishtau Shaukre

> > > > Rashavudayathi Kumbhamshakashcha Bhavathi Yadee - then the

> > > > result.And the author says -T hatha Cha Saravalyam.And quotes

> > > > corresponding shloka from Saravali,where again the said line is

> > > > present(sanskrit).Thus it says - For a Lady to have such a strong

> > > > sexual desire - Purusha Veshadhari(One dressign up as a man -thus

> > > > lesbian),her ascendant should belong to Venus and the amsha of her

> > > > ascendant should fall in Kumbha Rashi,and in her chart Saturn and

> > > > Venus should aspect each other and also have exchange of amshas.

> > > >

> > > > Thus you see,in either case there is a line which is missing in

> > your

> > > > book,which helps us to understand that it is not a varga chakra.I

> > > > dont know how it happened.

> > > >

> > > > Thus if Dashadhyayi was not there,then i would have also not got

> > any

> > > > opportunity to understand this in such detail.This is the beauty

> > of

> > > > this text and as you know without any value ParashnaMarga will not

> > > > praise it with such a high regard.The rest of the text is great

> > and

> > > > explains every concept with authority,quoting many sources.

> > > >

> > > > I consider you with great regard(Gurusthana) and holds respect

> > > > towards your views and analysis.You may kindly understand that,i

> > > > will not misquote and misrepresent,especially when the subject is

> > > > Jyotish.If some others in this list is having mistrust,they should

> > > > understand that i am not the only keralite living in this universe

> > > > and they can seek help from others to see if i am cheating.I have

> > no

> > > > hatred towards their words.If it brings happiness to them let them

> > > > continue with false allegations.

> > > >

> > > > I will prepare the paper and then would request your good self to

> > > > review.I am so thankful that you have tested me with tough

> > questions

> > > > and logic,which has helped me to learn more.

> > > >

> > > > Respect

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > >

> <%40>

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>, " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > >

> > > > > Purna drishte Purna Yogam Ardha Drishte ardhameva cha

> > > > > Pada drishte Padayogamiti gyeyam kramat phalam.

> > > > >

> > > > > Is mentioned and hence the aspects are not about Rashi drishti.

> > > > >

> > > > > Now as i have mentioned in the past,though the name is

> > > > > dashadhyayi,the author covers shlokas,from most of the chapters

> > as

> > > > > and when he finds some interrelationship or link.This i consider

> > > > as a

> > > > > real blessing.Now how amshakas are interpreted,has been

> > > > > demonstrated ,for numerous contexts,and thus forming a guideline

> > > > for

> > > > > other shloka interpretations.

> > > > >

> > > > > I will see the shlokas,and will write back.

> > > > >

> > > > > Respect

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > >

> <%40>

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Transits are to be seen no doubt from the rasis synonymous to

> > > > the

> > > > > > navamsha rasis, but when it is sphuta it is of the navamshesha

> > > > and

> > > > > not

> > > > > > the rasis. There is a difference between the two.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I have already said I do not consider aspects in D-charts,

> > > > unless

> > > > > > specifically mentioned in some yogas, and also that barring

> > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > charts, in other varga charts I look at rashi aspects. That

> > does

> > > > > not

> > > > > > mean I should close my eyes to what is written in other

> > > > respected

> > > > > texts.

> > > > > > That only means I look at charts from a different angle.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > There is nothing in the lagna shadvargake shloka to indicate

> > > > graded

> > > > > > aspects and so it does not rule out rashi drishti at all. Ans

> > > > since

> > > > > you

> > > > > > have quoted both Parashara and Jaimini you should know that

> > > > rashi

> > > > > > drishtis are valid in Parashara too and exclusively so in

> > > > Jaimini.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Your translation and mine of the shlokas differ and that is

> > why

> > > > > there is

> > > > > > no agreement. If you expect Dashaadhyaayi to give divisional

> > > > charts

> > > > > and

> > > > > > their interpretations, that is not possible as Varaha Mihira

> > on

> > > > > whose

> > > > > > work it is only a commentary does not speak of it and it is

> > > > > commentary

> > > > > > on only 10 of the 18 adhayaayas of Brihat jataka. If you read

> > > > > Brihat

> > > > > > jataka carefully, you will see reference o aspects in

> > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > there.

> > > > > > Since you have many times claimed superiority of Dashaadhyaayi

> > > > over

> > > > > many

> > > > > > of the more ancient and respected classics, I find it strange

> > as

> > > > to

> > > > > why

> > > > > > you do not want to accept what is said in the original text on

> > > > > which

> > > > > > Dashaadhyaayi is only a commentary and that too on 10

> > adhyaayas

> > > > as

> > > > > the

> > > > > > name suggests (that does not, of course, make it any less

> > > > > respectable).

> > > > > > There are many references to planets being placed in a

> > navamsha,

> > > > > which

> > > > > > is not identical with the rasi whose name the navamsha enjoys,

> > > > and

> > > > > the

> > > > > > results from them in the 21st adhyaaya. How do you map back

> > such

> > > > a

> > > > > > navamsha to the rasi and what should be the logic? You also

> > see

> > > > > > reference to Guru occupying own Trimshamsha, irrespective of

> > > > rasi

> > > > > in the

> > > > > > same adhayaaya. There are too many references like this to

> > > > question

> > > > > the

> > > > > > theory that the amshas need always be mapped back to identical

> > > > rasi

> > > > > in

> > > > > > rasi chart.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Could you tell why this reluctance to accept Varaha Mihira?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Meshamshe, Vrishamshe Transit results can be seen from Mesha

> > > > and

> > > > > > > Vrishabha rashis.Thus you are aware of what i am

> > > > saying.Moreover

> > > > > we

> > > > > > > have seen paparkshe.we have seen meshadi rashige swamshe.we

> > > > have

> > > > > seen

> > > > > > > that bhrigwonkaraka varge ,as per your understanding cannot

> > > > > satisfy

> > > > > > > both mars and venus.The very next shloka is talking about

> > mars

> > > > and

> > > > > > > venus yuti or aspecting.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Now we can forget all these as you are not williing to

> > accept

> > > > > > > rashi,riksha etc as valid reasoning.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > We have seen Lagna shadvargake shloka with aspectual

> > > > > grades,proving

> > > > > > > that they ae not rashi drishtis.Couple of days back and many

> > > > > times in

> > > > > > > the past,i have heard from you that you don't support

> > aspects

> > > > in

> > > > > > > Vargas.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > If you still have the sam views,then to understand

> > shadvargake

> > > > > > > shloka,we have to see planets aspecting lagna in ''six

> > > > charts''.As

> > > > > > > lagna can fall in any rashi,you have to accept aspects fully

> > > > in

> > > > > all

> > > > > > > Varga charts.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > This is relevant to our discussion as lagnamsha is also

> > part of

> > > > > > > shadvargas of lagna.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > As you are aware ,the BPHS translator too has expressed his

> > > > > concern.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > How could I think shadvarga of lagna is shadvarga of

> > rashi?

> > > > > Lagna

> > > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > > point on the eastern horizon at the time of birth of a

> > > > jataka.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > There is no dispute about what is lagnamsha and what is

> > > > > karakamsha

> > > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > all. At the same time when reference is to a graha

> > falling in

> > > > > > > Lagnamsha

> > > > > > > > it refers to the navamsha rasi (or sector ruled by one of

> > > > the

> > > > > rasis

> > > > > > > of a

> > > > > > > > planet, barring Sun and Chandra if you like it that way)

> > in

> > > > > which

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > lagnamsha falls. Now that being so where is the shubha

> > graha

> > > > > > > supposed to

> > > > > > > > fall in the shloka I quoted? Same with the Shubh graha in

> > > > > > > Karakamsha and

> > > > > > > > needing drishti of shubha graha on it. It is easy to say

> > that

> > > > > > > these

> > > > > > > > need to be seen in rasi, but for lack of the reference to

> > > > rasi,

> > > > > > > there,

> > > > > > > > there is no reason to assume that it does not refer to

> > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > rasi.

> > > > > > > > The reference to grahas in " Meshaamshe " , " Vrishabhaamshe "

> > > > etc

> > > > > are

> > > > > > > quite

> > > > > > > > clear, in BPHS.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Of course Yes,you are correct.Varga is found for this

> > > > bindu

> > > > > and in

> > > > > > > > > the case of planets their degree decides.The rest you

> > have

> > > > > stated

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > also as per definition.My point was made under the

> > > > impression

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > you have a view that,shadvarga of Lagna is shadvarga of

> > a

> > > > > > > rashi.If so

> > > > > > > > > it is not.Shad varga is found for Lagna bindu.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > The full Rashi/Kshethra in which Lagna bindu falls

> > becomes

> > > > its

> > > > > > > first

> > > > > > > > > Varga.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > The Translation is entiterely correct and no one can

> > > > > > > contradict.This

> > > > > > > > > is similar to one planet aspecting shadvargas of lagna.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Lagnamsha is already covered in the shadvargas of

> > > > > > > lagna.Karakamsha is

> > > > > > > > > similar too.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Now let us see it on a chart.Karkamasha is in

> > > > Dhanu.Jupiter is

> > > > > > > placed

> > > > > > > > > in Mithuna Rashi.Shubha graha is aspecting Karakamsha

> > Lagna

> > > > > > > > > (Rashi).Similarly Lagnamsha.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > You are already aware of the rules for aspects.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I see your point of view. anyway even within

> > shadvargas

> > > > we

> > > > > look

> > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > degree of a planet falling within a certain span of

> > > > degrees

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > particular bindu.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I agree that rashi is a Varga and my question is if

> > one

> > > > can

> > > > > > > look at

> > > > > > > > > > aspects in one Varga why not in other Vargas? I am

> > sure

> > > > you

> > > > > know

> > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > personally I use navamsha to find only the strength of

> > > > > grahas,

> > > > > > > but

> > > > > > > > > there

> > > > > > > > > > is no reason to rule out aspects in Navamshas or other

> > > > > charts

> > > > > > > > > totally.

> > > > > > > > > > One of the raj yogas mentioned by Parashara talks of

> > > > aspect

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > shubha

> > > > > > > > > > grahas on the karakamsha and Lagnamsha which should

> > also

> > > > be

> > > > > > > > > tenanted by

> > > > > > > > > > Shubha grahas, leaving no doubt as to where the

> > aspects

> > > > are

> > > > > to

> > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > seen.

> > > > > > > > > > And for the record the translation to that effect is

> > by

> > > > an

> > > > > > > eminent

> > > > > > > > > > astrologer who was Professor of astrology in Banaras

> > > > Hindu

> > > > > > > > > University.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Lagna as a bindu was mentioned for driving home the

> > > > > shadvarga

> > > > > > > > > > > calculations,if any members were having doubts.For

> > > > > shadvarga

> > > > > > > > > > > calculation of planets too we need the bindu or

> > degree

> > > > of

> > > > > a

> > > > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > > > > within a rashi, as you are aware.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > We have to look at Rashis.This is so because Rashi

> > > > (one 30

> > > > > > > degree

> > > > > > > > > > > sector ) is the first varga.As this Varga is

> > > > synonymous

> > > > > with

> > > > > > > Bhava

> > > > > > > > > > > houses are analysed w.r to Rashis.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > If lagna is a bindu a you propose, and nothing

> > more,

> > > > > then

> > > > > > > how

> > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > > > indicate an entire rasi? Now if this is correct,

> > and

> > > > > > > technically

> > > > > > > > > > > it is,

> > > > > > > > > > > > then by your reckoning there is no need to look at

> > > > rasis

> > > > > > > too. Is

> > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > what you mean to say?

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > If shadvargas are not related to the portion

> > falling

> > > > in

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > lagna

> > > > > > > > > > > rasis,

> > > > > > > > > > > > which holds the degree of lagna Madhya, then it

> > > > appears

> > > > > we

> > > > > > > must

> > > > > > > > > ask

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > sages to redefine Vargas. I doubt they need our

> > > > advise.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > There was a purpose.I just wanted to explain it

> > to

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > > members if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > some of them are not sure on what shadvarga of

> > > > lagna

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > how it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > is calculated.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > As you have said Vargas are divisions of a

> > > > rashi.But

> > > > > > > > > shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna is not the Vargas falling in Lagna.Here

> > > > lagna is

> > > > > > > not a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > rashi,but a bindu.Vargas are found from a

> > > > degree.The

> > > > > > > degree

> > > > > > > > > of a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > planet or degree of lagna.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > As you may know we do notneed six charts to

> > > > dtermine

> > > > > > > > > shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > lagna.All we need is the degree of lagna and the

> > > > rashi

> > > > > > > rising.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us take an example.Lagna is at 11 degrees in

> > > > > dhanu.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us find the shadvargas of Lagna with th help

> > > > of

> > > > > rising

> > > > > > > > > rashi

> > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > degree.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > 1st Varga - The Rashi in which Lagna bindu is

> > > > > falling -

> > > > > > > Dhanu

> > > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd Varga - The Hora in which Lagna bindu is

> > > > falling -

> > > > > As

> > > > > > > 11

> > > > > > > > > > > degrees

> > > > > > > > > > > > > falls in the 1st half of dhanu - Surya Hora

> > > > > > > > > > > > > 3rd Varga - The drekkana in which Lagna bindu is

> > > > > falling -

> > > > > > > As

> > > > > > > > > 11

> > > > > > > > > > > > > degrees falls in the 2nd 1/3rd of dhanu -

> > Drekkana

> > > > is

> > > > > > > Mesha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > 4th Varga - As 11 degrees falls in the 3rd

> > > > > > > saptamsha ,Lagna

> > > > > > > > > > > saptamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > is Kumbha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Similraly - Lagna navamsha is Karka,Lagna

> > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > dhanu.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus the purpose of whole exercise was to say

> > that

> > > > > when

> > > > > > > we say

> > > > > > > > > > > > > shadvargas of Lagna or Mars,it does not mean the

> > > > > rashis

> > > > > > > owned

> > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna or Mars.But the Rashis on towhich they are

> > > > > > > placed,having

> > > > > > > > > > > > > hora,drekkana etc etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas of Mars in the 2nd Rashi from karakamsha

> > > > too

> > > > > is no

> > > > > > > > > > > differet.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > There are many meanings,that is why Rashi is

> > > > called as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kshethra /Riksha /havana etc.But i don't think

> > > > sage

> > > > > will

> > > > > > > use

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > saword to represent something belonging to same

> > > > class.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > For example sage will not use ''sva'' to mean

> > 2nd

> > > > as

> > > > > well

> > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > 3rd.Then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > we cannot interpret.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly Rashi and navamsha will not be

> > > > represented

> > > > > > > using the

> > > > > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > > > word.Rashi/Kshethra/Riksha/Bhvana/Lagna etc are

> > > > > synonyms

> > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > ifthey

> > > > > > > > > > > > > are used for navamsha then what is the whole

> > > > purpose

> > > > > > > behind

> > > > > > > > > > > defintion.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand sva was used for iems from

> > > > different

> > > > > > > > > classes.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > This wasin mind while making such a statement.I

> > > > will

> > > > > try

> > > > > > > my

> > > > > > > > > best

> > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > polish my style of writing.I accept my

> > limitations

> > > > in

> > > > > > > writing.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have not understood your question or the

> > > > intent

> > > > > behind

> > > > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas are divisions, within a rasi, ruled by

> > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > grahas.

> > > > > > > > > > > So

> > > > > > > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > one wants t look at Vargas falling in lagna

> > the

> > > > shad

> > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > will

> > > > > > > > > > > > > mean

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the rasi equivalent occurring at lagna

> > position

> > > > in

> > > > > the 6

> > > > > > > > > > > divisional

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > charts of Rashi, Hora, Dreshkana, Navamsha,

> > > > > > > Dwaadashamsha

> > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamsha. Or at least this is what I have

> > > > learnt.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sages did not use words in vain or context. I

> > > > > agree. But

> > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean they used the words to mean only one

> > thing

> > > > > always.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I never said that the meaning can be changed

> > to

> > > > > suit our

> > > > > > > > > > > > > convenience and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would request you not to attribute such

> > > > > sentiments to

> > > > > > > me.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > However I do say that word are used in

> > different

> > > > > > > contexts to

> > > > > > > > > > > mean

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > different things, especially in Sanskrit

> > texts of

> > > > > > > Jyotish. I

> > > > > > > > > > > have,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > just

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a few minutes back use of " Sva " with different

> > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > places by Varaha Mihira to you. I hope you do

> > > > not

> > > > > also

> > > > > > > > > attribute

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > words that you attributed to me to the

> > venerated

> > > > > Varaha

> > > > > > > > > Mihira.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar,.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pls tell me what you mean by shadvargas of

> > > > > lagna.How

> > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > find

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them.Do you go by ownership or placement

> > > > > > > > > > > > > (Rashi/navamsha/dwadshamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc).

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are shlokas in Varahamihiras text

> > which

> > > > > > > > > says ,Okarkshe

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Purushamshakae.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which means in Ojarashi and Oja amsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As per me sages will not use any words out

> > of

> > > > > > > context.If

> > > > > > > > > he

> > > > > > > > > > > wants

> > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > say amsha he will mention it.He will not use

> > > > > Rashi to

> > > > > > > > > mean as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > amsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ojarkshe is Oja Rashi.Similarly Paparkshe is

> > > > Papa

> > > > > > > Rashi.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you want to say as per our conveninece we

> > > > can

> > > > > > > change

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of riksha/rashi/bhavana/bhavas as navamsha

> > > > then i

> > > > > > > cannot

> > > > > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anything.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can only respect your views.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will tell you why that happens. You

> > begin

> > > > with

> > > > > > > quoting

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then give a sutra from Jaimini as being

> > said

> > > > by

> > > > > > > > > Parashara.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Interpretation of sutras is not the

> > easiest

> > > > of

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > things,

> > > > > > > > > > > more

> > > > > > > > > > > > > so

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jaimini's Upadesha sutras. That the sutras

> > > > use

> > > > > > > > > KaTaPaYaadi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > encryption

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > makes them even more difficult to

> > interpret.

> > > > I

> > > > > am

> > > > > > > sure

> > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > noticed

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this when Sreenadh interpreted the

> > > > KaTaPaYaadi

> > > > > > > Varga in

> > > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > wrong

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fashion.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then there is your insistence to let

> > Sanskrit

> > > > > > > grammar

> > > > > > > > > give

> > > > > > > > > > > a go

> > > > > > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that can make interpretation of a shloka

> > or

> > > > > sutra

> > > > > > > fit

> > > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposition.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any of the Shodasha Vargas of a rasi can

> > be

> > > > > > > referred to

> > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far as I know in astrology, when one talks

> > > > of

> > > > > Varga,

> > > > > > > > > without

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > qualifying

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it, or Amshas that generally refers to

> > > > navamsha

> > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dwadashaamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another reason that we can not agree, or

> > > > seem to

> > > > > > > agree,

> > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reluctant to call a navamsha by the

> > > > nomenclature

> > > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > rasi.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > makes it difficult to convey what I mean

> > to

> > > > say

> > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > English

> > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the language of the net and which both of

> > us

> > > > > know.

> > > > > > > Now

> > > > > > > > > > > since you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > want to use the word Mesha navamsha as

> > Mesha

> > > > is

> > > > > a

> > > > > > > rashi

> > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > logic it can not be a navamsha, it becomes

> > > > > > > difficult to

> > > > > > > > > > > convey

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understand by the texts.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will like to draw your attention to the

> > > > > literal

> > > > > > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi. It means a heap and nothing more. In

> > > > > astrology

> > > > > > > > > since

> > > > > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > encompasses many stars that make up a

> > > > nakshatra

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > 1/12th

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > division of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the zodiac is called a Rasi. Or at least

> > > > this

> > > > > is my

> > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason of using the word rasi for the

> > 1/12th

> > > > > > > division

> > > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > zodiac.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not agree that by Chandra in Guru

> > Varga

> > > > it

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > meant

> > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandra is being seen. To me we are

> > talking

> > > > > about is

> > > > > > > > > whether

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandra is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > falling in the Varga of Guru in which ever

> > > > rasi

> > > > > he

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > occupying.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Navamsha we see whether Chandra is

> > occupying

> > > > > Pisces

> > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sagittarius

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > navamsha. I also do not agree that there

> > are

> > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > Chandra

> > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of any

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > planet for that matter. The 16 Vargas that

> > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > > talks

> > > > > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that of a Rasi, beginning from the Rashi

> > > > itself.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the Vargas are not owned by different

> > > > > planets,

> > > > > > > pray

> > > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the sage

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tell us to see occupation of a friend, own

> > > > etc.

> > > > > > > Varga to

> > > > > > > > > > > assess

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > strength of a planet in the Varga

> > concerned?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have interacted with many astrologers of

> > > > > > > yesteryears

> > > > > > > > > (with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > respect to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > my age group) and have never found them

> > > > > claiming the

> > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only lagna and planets.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you insist that sage Parashara gave the

> > > > SU.

> > > > > 52.-

> > > > > > > > > " Tatra

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bhrigwongaraka

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > varge paradarikaha " , perhaps you are

> > > > referring

> > > > > to

> > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > edition

> > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BPHS

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that I do not have. However I do have that

> > > > in

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > umpteen

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > texts on Jaimini that I do have in my

> > > > library.

> > > > > And

> > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > way,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > scholars have interpreted that to mean 9th

> > > > from

> > > > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the 2nd.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not agree that a graha can

> > > > simultaneously

> > > > > > > occupy

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars, simultaneously, as is

> > being

> > > > > > > suggested

> > > > > > > > > > > whether in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in any of the Vargas. It could only occupy

> > > > one

> > > > > or

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > other.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have seen you arguing in favor of

> > looking

> > > > at

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > Shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grahas Venus and Mars. I would like you to

> > > > look

> > > > > at

> > > > > > > all

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > six

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > charts

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whose Vargas together are referred as

> > > > > Shadvargas and

> > > > > > > > > try to

> > > > > > > > > > > find

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > out

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whether they do indeed contain the 6

> > Vargas

> > > > of

> > > > > Venus

> > > > > > > > > and 6

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars. I am sure that you will find them to

> > > > > contain

> > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > 5

> > > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > each of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the grahas. Once you confirm this by

> > looking

> > > > at

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > 6

> > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > self,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tell me how one can look at Shadvargas of

> > > > Venus

> > > > > or

> > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested to be the interpretation of the

> > > > sutra

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > you are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > referring to.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You may also be interested to know that

> > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > talks

> > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > AK

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > falling in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Varga of Chandra, Mars or Venus also

> > > > having

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > roving

> > > > > > > > > > > eye

> > > > > > > > > > > > > on

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wives. So the combination of Venus and

> > Mars

> > > > > being

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > giving

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the roving eye for other's wives, that you

> > > > are

> > > > > > > > > advancing as

> > > > > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > standalone

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > principle, may not, necessarily, be the

> > way

> > > > the

> > > > > sage

> > > > > > > > > looked

> > > > > > > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > their

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > interpretation.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Those were written by me.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am very dissappointed to see

> > > > that ,inspite

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > repeating

> > > > > > > > > > > > > numerus

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > times,you are unable to get what i am

> > > > saying.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not talking about rashis lorded by

> > > > > shukra or

> > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > here.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > am

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > talking about the shadvargas vargas of

> > > > mars

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > shukra.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pls tell me what is the meaning of

> > > > shadvargas

> > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > simply

> > > > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lagna.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the rashi in which lagna is

> > > > placed.The

> > > > > > > > > navamshaka of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna,Trimshamshaka of Lagna etc.Can we

> > > > see

> > > > > any

> > > > > > > > > lordship

> > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > say.Lagna does not own any rashi.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly when we say vargas of Venus -

> > It

> > > > > means

> > > > > > > Rashi

> > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > Venus,Hora,navamshaka,drekkana,trimshamshaka

> > > > > etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shadvarga is never the rashi owned by a

> > > > > > > planet.Then

> > > > > > > > > Lagna

> > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > never

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have shadvarga.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say,Chandra in

> > Guru

> > > > > > > Varga - We

> > > > > > > > > > > are not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > seeing

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the shadvarga of Guru,but that of

> > > > chandra.Is

> > > > > > > chandra

> > > > > > > > > > > placed in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guru

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rashi?Is Chandra navamshaka in Guru

> > > > Rashi.Is

> > > > > > > Chandra

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamshaka in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guru Rashi etc is what we check.If so

> > > > chandras

> > > > > > > vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > fall in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > guru

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashis or we say chandra is in

> > guruvargas.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the same reason schoplars of

> > > > yesteryears

> > > > > > > always

> > > > > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for our natal Lagna and Planets.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand you are taking them as

> > > > > owned by

> > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > planet.Every

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > shadvarga that derive is like that.You

> > may

> > > > > check

> > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > shri

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Narasimha,how he is deriving it for his

> > > > > software.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the same reason Bhrigu and Angara

> > can

> > > > have

> > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > together

> > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rashi which is 2nd from Karakamsha.Sage

> > > > > clearly

> > > > > > > talks

> > > > > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vargas from both.Moreover the next

> > shloka

> > > > is

> > > > > > > talking

> > > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus together or aspecting the 2nd from

> > > > > > > karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we go by your

> > > > > explanation,we

> > > > > > > > > have to

> > > > > > > > > > > opt

> > > > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just one among shukra or Mars which is

> > not

> > > > > > > > > proper.Their

> > > > > > > > > > > Joint

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > influence creates sexual drive.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I request you to kindly read this with

> > > > care.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rspect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The below remarks are not from my mail

> > > > at

> > > > > all.

> > > > > > > I do

> > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > know

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think I would write that. I am sure

> > you

> > > > know

> > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > my

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > style

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of writing at all.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " >From my experience -Mars + Venus

> > > > creates

> > > > > > > certin

> > > > > > > > > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why

> > are

> > > > you

> > > > > > > going

> > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > owned by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just one of them and that too without

> > a

> > > > > > > planetary

> > > > > > > > > link

> > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > worrying me.Shri Rath has translated

> > so,i

> > > > > > > agree.But

> > > > > > > > > i

> > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will

> > > > definitely

> > > > > > > correct

> > > > > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > benfit

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of jyotish community. "

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As to why I said they could not be

> > > > having

> > > > > their

> > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > together in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi or Bhava does not need any deeper

> > > > > > > explanation.

> > > > > > > > > If

> > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > looking

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at the 2nd from Karakamsha in the rasi

> > > > > chart,

> > > > > > > as you

> > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > right, you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > could not have both Mesha and

> > Vrishabha

> > > > or

> > > > > Tula

> > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Vrishchika

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd from the Karakamsha, is that not

> > so?

> > > > > > > Similarly

> > > > > > > > > if in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the 2nd from Karakamsha is to be seen,

> > > > the

> > > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > > > could be

> > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > navamshas.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I though you meant so.Because in

> > > > > subsequent

> > > > > > > lines

> > > > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > see

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and Karakamsha being used for the

> > same

> > > > > > > > > purpose.But if

> > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there are other places where swamsha

> > > > is

> > > > > used

> > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagnamsha ,then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i can trust you if you can point me

> > to

> > > > > that.

> > > > > > > This

> > > > > > > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problem and in no way it will affect

> > > > us.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars can ofcourse have

> > their

> > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > in a

> > > > > > > > > > > single

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashi or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bhava.Venus can have navamsha

> > > > there,Mars

> > > > > can

> > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there,Venus can have Trimshamsha

> > > > > there,Mars

> > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there,they both can have drekkana

> > > > there

> > > > > etc

> > > > > > > etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus sage is talking about Bhrigu

> > and

> > > > > Angara

> > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > (as

> > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > identified gramattically) having

> > varga

> > > > > there

> > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > it is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > very

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > much

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you note the next line -Sage is

> > > > talking

> > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > joining or aspecting the 2nd from

> > > > > Karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From my experience -Mars + Venus

> > > > creates

> > > > > > > certin

> > > > > > > > > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why

> > > > are

> > > > > you

> > > > > > > going

> > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > owned by just one of them and that

> > too

> > > > > > > without a

> > > > > > > > > > > planetary

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > link is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really worrying me.Shri Rath has

> > > > > translated

> > > > > > > so,i

> > > > > > > > > > > > > agree.But i

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will

> > > > > definitely

> > > > > > > > > correct

> > > > > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > benfit of jyotish community.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am surprised as to why you say

> > > > so.That

> > > > > they

> > > > > > > > > cannot

> > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > together.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pardeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In

> <%40>

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > > > 40>,

> > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have never said that I do not

> > > > think

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different where the context

> > demands

> > > > so.

> > > > > At

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > > > time I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammar can be put to rest to in

> > the

> > > > > name of

> > > > > > > > > > > context,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sound

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course if you want contextual

> > > > > translation

> > > > > > > > > only,

> > > > > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > certainly say that the " Meshadi

> > > > raashige

> > > > > > > > > swaamshe "

> > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > always be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > translated as " Falling in Mesha

> > > > > navamsha in

> > > > > > > > > Mesha

> > > > > > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc. " .

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way " Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka

> > > > > Varge " ,

> > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mention, does

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean varga of both Venus and mars,

> > > > but

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus OR

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > due to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the grammar only. varga of two

> > > > planets

> > > > > can

> > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > fall

> > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bhava/amsha/rasi whether in rasi

> > or

> > > > > > > Navamsha or

> > > > > > > > > any

> > > > > > > > > > > > > other

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Grammatically,what you are

> > saying

> > > > is

> > > > > also

> > > > > > > > > true.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But Jyotish defintions play a

> > > > > preceding

> > > > > > > role

> > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > choosing

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammatical meaning.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example one meaning of

> > > > > labhe ,Swamshe

> > > > > > > etc

> > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 11th

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But if we go by that we will

> > > > > definitely

> > > > > > > > > translate

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamshe in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > meshadi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashige as ''in

> > Swamsha'',thereby

> > > > > > > translating

> > > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > full

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart.This as you too agree,then

> > > > > cannot

> > > > > > > pass

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > test,of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > subsequent shlokas.I understand

> > > > gladly

> > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > too

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > agree that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha and karakamsha are the

> > > > same.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So the context decides

> > > > plural/singular

> > > > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > necessarily

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the ''E''

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as you have rightly mentioned.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But in essence what i want to

> > say

> > > > > is ''E''

> > > > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > always

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean ''in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the'' as you have

> > > > > interpreted.Labheshe is

> > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example.Karake

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus it can very well mean

> > Varga of

> > > > > > > Shukra and

> > > > > > > > > > > Mars-

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > six vargas or one varga.(Not

> > > > lordship)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra -(There) In the second

> > from

> > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga or Vargas of Venus and

> > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now why should we need two

> > > > > qualifiesrs for

> > > > > > > > > > > destination

> > > > > > > > > > > > > (1)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from karakamsha 2)in the vargas

> > > > of?)-

> > > > > if

> > > > > > > we had

> > > > > > > > > > > another

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your interpretation is

> > right.That

> > > > > planet

> > > > > > > will

> > > > > > > > > > > answer

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > question -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who is in the vargas of ?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly - Swamshad dhane

> > Shukrar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Swamshad dhane is already

> > pointing

> > > > to

> > > > > > > > > destination-

> > > > > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > need

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > another ''in the'' vargas of.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say in

> > the

> > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > from

> > > > > > > > > > > > > karakamsha if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mars and venus are present,it

> > fits

> > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammatically.Moreover

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i had

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentioned rashi lordship without

> > > > > planetary

> > > > > > > > > link

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (placement/amsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is too general.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In

> > > >

> <%40>

> > <%40> <%

> > 40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > 40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > > > > 40>,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I may be wrong but the " E " by

> > > > itself

> > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > point

> > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > word Shadvarga indicating 6

> > > > Vargas

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > group

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (though it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more than one unit) and

> > > > so " Varge " ,

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > singular is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " E " means " in " . I would be

> > happy

> > > > if

> > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > example

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of " Varge "

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plural

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can be given.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not at all think that

> > > > Vargaka

> > > > > or

> > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > singular and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargake

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge is plural, at all. Both

> > the

> > > > > > > manner of

> > > > > > > > > > > using

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > indicates singular. it is no

> > use

> > > > > > > projecting

> > > > > > > > > > > what is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clearly

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saptami

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vibhakti and singular as

> > being a

> > > > > plural

> > > > > > > > > word. If

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dvivachana it may

> > > > become " VargyoH "

> > > > > > > > > or " VargeSu "

> > > > > > > > > > > (for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bahuvachan)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge. Perhaps some Sanskrit

> > > > > scholar on

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > list

> > > > > > > > > > > > > would

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > comment

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on this.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, much as I would like it to

> > > > > resolve,

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > issue

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > remains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unresolved.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will give you a relevant

> > > > > example to

> > > > > > > > > explain

> > > > > > > > > > > how

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VarGE

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > context of plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna Shad-VargaKE - Is

> > > > pointing

> > > > > to

> > > > > > > all

> > > > > > > > > > > vargas -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plural.You

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > may

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > note

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that the grammatical ending

> > is

> > > > > > > with ''E''

> > > > > > > > > > > showing

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plurals

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expressed with such an

> > ending.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now from Vrishamsha''Ka''

> > and

> > > > > Tulamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > example we

> > > > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > conclude

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VargaKA and VarGA can be

> > used

> > > > for

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > > > purpose in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ekavachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > singular form and VargaKE

> > and

> > > > > VarGE

> > > > > > > can be

> > > > > > > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bahuvachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plural form.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope this may help us in

> > > > > resolving

> > > > > > > our

> > > > > > > > > > > issue.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------

> > ---

> > > > ---

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this

> > incoming

> > > > > > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus

> > > > Database:

> > > > > > > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this

> > > > message

> > > > > have

> > > > > > > been

> > > > > > > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------

> > ---

> > > > ---

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

> > > > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus

> > Database:

> > > > > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message

> > > > have

> > > > > been

> > > > > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---

> > ---

> > > > ---

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

> > > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message

> > have

> > > > been

> > > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------

> > ---

> > > > ---

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have

> > been

> > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----------

> > ---

> > > > ---

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------

> > ---

> > > > ---

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > 269.10.2/890 -

> > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > -------------------

> > ---

> > > > ---

> > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/890 -

> > > > Release

> > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandrashekhar ji

 

The drishti mentioned in the concerned shloka is Graha drishti and

not Rashi drishti is the view of shri PVR Narasimha Rao.

 

I would be glad to know about your view.This answer will certainly

help us.We are not all denying rashi drishti.Our concern is about the

shloka under discussion.

 

It was not my interpretation.Moreover,i personally do not feel venus

and saturn in mutual amshas alone cannot effect in such a result.The

whole set of conditions would make one so.For the same

reason,Dashadhyayi and Saravali is talking about a single yoga,which

i feel as correct.If you think they are seperate,it is fine.

 

Respect

Pradeep

 

 

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> Why should Rashi drishtis be graded by Jaimini or Parashara? Any

reason?

> That " drishties are graded and not partial " , is the view of PVR?

Does he

> think that drishtis have t be graded for rashi drishti? I would

doubt that.

>

> It is no use insisting that only graded graha drishtis must be

> considered because one thinks that is right and throw out rashi

drishtis

> on the one hand and then go on and quote Jaimini when it suits an

> argument on the other, or Parashara for that matter.

>

> By the way there is a difference between Sanmukha and Parshva

drishti in

> rashi drishti so you have classification within classification that

you

> are seeking, right there, within the Rashi drishtis.

>

> I have already made my personal opinion clear and have no reason to

> revise the same. At the same time, I do not think I am of an

elevated

> stature, in the realm of astrology, enough to say that what other

> learned had said must be wrong if it does not coincide with my

views.

>

> Saravali does not state what is wrong, it is your interpretation of

the

> shloka that is different from the " Kantimati " commentary

on " Saravali "

> that makes it so.

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

>

>

> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >

> > I feel the drishtis are graded and not partial drishtis.Poorna

> > drishti is mentioned.

> >

> > Kindly help me with the shloka in BPHS or Jaimini sutra pointing

to

> > grading o Rashi drishti.

> >

> > Shri PVR Rao has the same view.

> >

> > Now as it is graha drishti,and as you do not accept aspects as a

rule

> > in general in varga chakras -how can this yoga happen is the

> > crux.This it will solve all our issues,unless you want to change

your

> > opinion on graha drishtis within Varga chakra.Thus as far as i am

> > concerned one answer from you will atleast enable both of us to

reach

> > a conclusion.If you change your opinion then it is your view and i

> > respect that.

> >

> > Now Trimishamsha shloka is ending(not chakra) bforeour shloka and

> > sage is talking about aspect between planets,Lagna belonging to

> > Shukra and Lagnas amsha falling within Ghata rashi and shukra and

> > Saturn undergoing exchange in amsha.Do we need another example to

see

> > how differen aspects are studied together.Where is Trimshamsha

chakra

> > here.If Saravali is wrong too,then i cannot say anything.

> >

> > Respect

> > Pradeep

> > -- In

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > The partial drishtis are graded in different strengths in the

> > shloka

> > > that you have quoted. I fail to see how the interpretation of

this

> > > shloka puts an end to aspects in Vargas ,and how does it prove

that

> > > rashi drishti is not to be considered as claimed by you.

> > >

> > > Why should the shubha grahas have only graded drishti and not

Rashi

> > > drishti? There is nothing to support that premise in the shlokas

> > from

> > > Brihat Jataka talking about aspects in Trimshamshas.

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > >

> > > > I thought you were aware of where that shloka is from.

> > > > It is present in Rajayogadhyaya and came into picture during

my

> > > > debate with shri PVR Rao.

> > > > This shloka was debated as ,interpretation of this shloka will

> > bring

> > > > to end all doubts regarding vargamshas.

> > > > It is relevant to our discussion as you have mentioned shubha

> > grahas

> > > > aspecting Lagnamsha,and lagnamsha i one among the shadvargas

of

> > Lagna.

> > > >

> > > > Now you may kindly say,how this has to be interpreted ,as

rashi

> > > > drishti is ruled out in this case.

> > > >

> > > > I have no problems with Rashi drishti.But as you see in this

case

> > > > grades are being mentioned.

> > > >

> > > > Regsrding the shlokas(navamsha/trimshamsha),i did not have

time

> > > > yesterday in the night.Thus i have posted you the

shlokas,withfull

> > > > explanation and refernces.Kindly see them.

> > > >

> > > > Respect

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > Do you mean to say that Parashara says that in connection

with

> > > > > Meshaamshe etc.? I doubt that shloka exists in the

karakamsha

> > > > adhyaaya,

> > > > > but of course, I could be wrong.

> > > > >

> > > > > I asked you whether you accept the rashi drishtis that are

> > > > mentioned by

> > > > > Parashara and Jaimini or not? If Dashaaadhyaayi interprets

the

> > > > shlokas

> > > > > on navamsha and Trimshamshas from Brihat Jataka, why not

give

> > what

> > > > it says?

> > > > >

> > > > > You have given your interpretation of how amshakas should be

> > > > > interpreted, but failed to address the queries. May I know

why?

> > > > >

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Purna drishte Purna Yogam Ardha Drishte ardhameva cha

> > > > > > Pada drishte Padayogamiti gyeyam kramat phalam.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Is mentioned and hence the aspects are not about Rashi

> > drishti.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Now as i have mentioned in the past,though the name is

> > > > > > dashadhyayi,the author covers shlokas,from most of the

> > chapters as

> > > > > > and when he finds some interrelationship or link.This i

> > consider

> > > > as a

> > > > > > real blessing.Now how amshakas are interpreted,has been

> > > > > > demonstrated ,for numerous contexts,and thus forming a

> > guideline

> > > > for

> > > > > > other shloka interpretations.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I will see the shlokas,and will write back.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Transits are to be seen no doubt from the rasis

synonymous

> > to

> > > > the

> > > > > > > navamsha rasis, but when it is sphuta it is of the

> > navamshesha

> > > > and

> > > > > > not

> > > > > > > the rasis. There is a difference between the two.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I have already said I do not consider aspects in D-

charts,

> > > > unless

> > > > > > > specifically mentioned in some yogas, and also that

barring

> > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > charts, in other varga charts I look at rashi aspects.

That

> > does

> > > > > > not

> > > > > > > mean I should close my eyes to what is written in other

> > > > respected

> > > > > > texts.

> > > > > > > That only means I look at charts from a different angle.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > There is nothing in the lagna shadvargake shloka to

indicate

> > > > graded

> > > > > > > aspects and so it does not rule out rashi drishti at

all.

> > Ans

> > > > since

> > > > > > you

> > > > > > > have quoted both Parashara and Jaimini you should know

that

> > > > rashi

> > > > > > > drishtis are valid in Parashara too and exclusively so

in

> > > > Jaimini.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Your translation and mine of the shlokas differ and

that is

> > why

> > > > > > there is

> > > > > > > no agreement. If you expect Dashaadhyaayi to give

divisional

> > > > charts

> > > > > > and

> > > > > > > their interpretations, that is not possible as Varaha

> > Mihira on

> > > > > > whose

> > > > > > > work it is only a commentary does not speak of it and

it is

> > > > > > commentary

> > > > > > > on only 10 of the 18 adhayaayas of Brihat jataka. If you

> > read

> > > > > > Brihat

> > > > > > > jataka carefully, you will see reference o aspects in

> > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > there.

> > > > > > > Since you have many times claimed superiority of

> > Dashaadhyaayi

> > > > over

> > > > > > many

> > > > > > > of the more ancient and respected classics, I find it

> > strange

> > > > as to

> > > > > > why

> > > > > > > you do not want to accept what is said in the original

text

> > on

> > > > > > which

> > > > > > > Dashaadhyaayi is only a commentary and that too on 10

> > adhyaayas

> > > > as

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > name suggests (that does not, of course, make it any

less

> > > > > > respectable).

> > > > > > > There are many references to planets being placed in a

> > navamsha,

> > > > > > which

> > > > > > > is not identical with the rasi whose name the navamsha

> > enjoys,

> > > > and

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > results from them in the 21st adhyaaya. How do you map

back

> > > > such a

> > > > > > > navamsha to the rasi and what should be the logic? You

also

> > see

> > > > > > > reference to Guru occupying own Trimshamsha,

irrespective of

> > > > rasi

> > > > > > in the

> > > > > > > same adhayaaya. There are too many references like this

to

> > > > question

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > theory that the amshas need always be mapped back to

> > identical

> > > > rasi

> > > > > > in

> > > > > > > rasi chart.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Could you tell why this reluctance to accept Varaha

Mihira?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Meshamshe, Vrishamshe Transit results can be seen from

> > Mesha

> > > > and

> > > > > > > > Vrishabha rashis.Thus you are aware of what i am

> > > > saying.Moreover

> > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > have seen paparkshe.we have seen meshadi rashige

> > swamshe.we

> > > > have

> > > > > > seen

> > > > > > > > that bhrigwonkaraka varge ,as per your understanding

> > cannot

> > > > > > satisfy

> > > > > > > > both mars and venus.The very next shloka is talking

about

> > > > mars and

> > > > > > > > venus yuti or aspecting.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Now we can forget all these as you are not williing to

> > accept

> > > > > > > > rashi,riksha etc as valid reasoning.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > We have seen Lagna shadvargake shloka with aspectual

> > > > > > grades,proving

> > > > > > > > that they ae not rashi drishtis.Couple of days back

and

> > many

> > > > > > times in

> > > > > > > > the past,i have heard from you that you don't support

> > aspects

> > > > in

> > > > > > > > Vargas.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > If you still have the sam views,then to understand

> > shadvargake

> > > > > > > > shloka,we have to see planets aspecting lagna in ''six

> > > > charts''.As

> > > > > > > > lagna can fall in any rashi,you have to accept aspects

> > fully

> > > > in

> > > > > > all

> > > > > > > > Varga charts.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > This is relevant to our discussion as lagnamsha is

also

> > part

> > > > of

> > > > > > > > shadvargas of lagna.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > As you are aware ,the BPHS translator too has

expressed

> > his

> > > > > > concern.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>,

Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > How could I think shadvarga of lagna is shadvarga of

> > rashi?

> > > > > > Lagna

> > > > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > > > point on the eastern horizon at the time of birth

of a

> > > > jataka.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > There is no dispute about what is lagnamsha and

what is

> > > > > > karakamsha

> > > > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > > all. At the same time when reference is to a graha

> > falling

> > > > in

> > > > > > > > Lagnamsha

> > > > > > > > > it refers to the navamsha rasi (or sector ruled by

one

> > of

> > > > the

> > > > > > rasis

> > > > > > > > of a

> > > > > > > > > planet, barring Sun and Chandra if you like it that

> > way) in

> > > > > > which

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > lagnamsha falls. Now that being so where is the

shubha

> > graha

> > > > > > > > supposed to

> > > > > > > > > fall in the shloka I quoted? Same with the Shubh

graha

> > in

> > > > > > > > Karakamsha and

> > > > > > > > > needing drishti of shubha graha on it. It is easy

to say

> > > > that

> > > > > > > > these

> > > > > > > > > need to be seen in rasi, but for lack of the

reference

> > to

> > > > rasi,

> > > > > > > > there,

> > > > > > > > > there is no reason to assume that it does not refer

to

> > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > rasi.

> > > > > > > > > The reference to grahas

> > in " Meshaamshe " , " Vrishabhaamshe "

> > > > etc

> > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > quite

> > > > > > > > > clear, in BPHS.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Of course Yes,you are correct.Varga is found for

this

> > > > bindu

> > > > > > and in

> > > > > > > > > > the case of planets their degree decides.The rest

you

> > have

> > > > > > stated

> > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > also as per definition.My point was made under the

> > > > impression

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > you have a view that,shadvarga of Lagna is

shadvarga

> > of a

> > > > > > > > rashi.If so

> > > > > > > > > > it is not.Shad varga is found for Lagna bindu.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > The full Rashi/Kshethra in which Lagna bindu falls

> > > > becomes its

> > > > > > > > first

> > > > > > > > > > Varga.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > The Translation is entiterely correct and no one

can

> > > > > > > > contradict.This

> > > > > > > > > > is similar to one planet aspecting shadvargas of

> > lagna.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Lagnamsha is already covered in the shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > lagna.Karakamsha is

> > > > > > > > > > similar too.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Now let us see it on a chart.Karkamasha is in

> > > > Dhanu.Jupiter is

> > > > > > > > placed

> > > > > > > > > > in Mithuna Rashi.Shubha graha is aspecting

Karakamsha

> > > > Lagna

> > > > > > > > > > (Rashi).Similarly Lagnamsha.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > You are already aware of the rules for aspects.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I see your point of view. anyway even within

> > shadvargas

> > > > we

> > > > > > look

> > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > degree of a planet falling within a certain

span of

> > > > degrees

> > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > particular bindu.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I agree that rashi is a Varga and my question

is if

> > one

> > > > can

> > > > > > > > look at

> > > > > > > > > > > aspects in one Varga why not in other Vargas? I

am

> > sure

> > > > you

> > > > > > know

> > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > personally I use navamsha to find only the

strength

> > of

> > > > > > grahas,

> > > > > > > > but

> > > > > > > > > > there

> > > > > > > > > > > is no reason to rule out aspects in Navamshas or

> > other

> > > > > > charts

> > > > > > > > > > totally.

> > > > > > > > > > > One of the raj yogas mentioned by Parashara

talks of

> > > > aspect

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > shubha

> > > > > > > > > > > grahas on the karakamsha and Lagnamsha which

should

> > > > also be

> > > > > > > > > > tenanted by

> > > > > > > > > > > Shubha grahas, leaving no doubt as to where the

> > aspects

> > > > are

> > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > seen.

> > > > > > > > > > > And for the record the translation to that

effect

> > is by

> > > > an

> > > > > > > > eminent

> > > > > > > > > > > astrologer who was Professor of astrology in

Banaras

> > > > Hindu

> > > > > > > > > > University.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna as a bindu was mentioned for driving

home

> > the

> > > > > > shadvarga

> > > > > > > > > > > > calculations,if any members were having

doubts.For

> > > > > > shadvarga

> > > > > > > > > > > > calculation of planets too we need the bindu

or

> > > > degree of

> > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > > > > > within a rashi, as you are aware.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > We have to look at Rashis.This is so because

Rashi

> > > > (one 30

> > > > > > > > degree

> > > > > > > > > > > > sector ) is the first varga.As this Varga is

> > > > synonymous

> > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > Bhava

> > > > > > > > > > > > houses are analysed w.r to Rashis.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > If lagna is a bindu a you propose, and

nothing

> > more,

> > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > how

> > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > indicate an entire rasi? Now if this is

> > correct, and

> > > > > > > > technically

> > > > > > > > > > > > it is,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > then by your reckoning there is no need to

look

> > at

> > > > rasis

> > > > > > > > too. Is

> > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > what you mean to say?

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > If shadvargas are not related to the portion

> > > > falling in

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > lagna

> > > > > > > > > > > > rasis,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > which holds the degree of lagna Madhya,

then it

> > > > appears

> > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > must

> > > > > > > > > > ask

> > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > sages to redefine Vargas. I doubt they need

our

> > > > advise.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > There was a purpose.I just wanted to

explain

> > it

> > > > to the

> > > > > > > > > > members if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > some of them are not sure on what

shadvarga of

> > > > lagna

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > how it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is calculated.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > As you have said Vargas are divisions of a

> > > > rashi.But

> > > > > > > > > > shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna is not the Vargas falling in

Lagna.Here

> > > > lagna is

> > > > > > > > not a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashi,but a bindu.Vargas are found from a

> > > > degree.The

> > > > > > > > degree

> > > > > > > > > > of a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > planet or degree of lagna.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > As you may know we do notneed six charts

to

> > > > dtermine

> > > > > > > > > > shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > lagna.All we need is the degree of lagna

and

> > the

> > > > rashi

> > > > > > > > rising.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us take an example.Lagna is at 11

degrees

> > in

> > > > > > dhanu.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us find the shadvargas of Lagna with

th

> > help

> > > > of

> > > > > > rising

> > > > > > > > > > rashi

> > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > degree.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1st Varga - The Rashi in which Lagna

bindu is

> > > > > > falling -

> > > > > > > > Dhanu

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd Varga - The Hora in which Lagna bindu

is

> > > > falling -

> > > > > > As

> > > > > > > > 11

> > > > > > > > > > > > degrees

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > falls in the 1st half of dhanu - Surya

Hora

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3rd Varga - The drekkana in which Lagna

bindu

> > is

> > > > > > falling -

> > > > > > > > As

> > > > > > > > > > 11

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > degrees falls in the 2nd 1/3rd of dhanu -

> > > > Drekkana is

> > > > > > > > Mesha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4th Varga - As 11 degrees falls in the 3rd

> > > > > > > > saptamsha ,Lagna

> > > > > > > > > > > > saptamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is Kumbha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similraly - Lagna navamsha is Karka,Lagna

> > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > dhanu.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus the purpose of whole exercise was to

say

> > that

> > > > > > when

> > > > > > > > we say

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > shadvargas of Lagna or Mars,it does not

mean

> > the

> > > > > > rashis

> > > > > > > > owned

> > > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna or Mars.But the Rashis on towhich

they

> > are

> > > > > > > > placed,having

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > hora,drekkana etc etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas of Mars in the 2nd Rashi from

> > karakamsha

> > > > too

> > > > > > is no

> > > > > > > > > > > > differet.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are many meanings,that is why Rashi

is

> > > > called as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kshethra /Riksha /havana etc.But i don't

think

> > > > sage

> > > > > > will

> > > > > > > > use

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > saword to represent something belonging to

> > same

> > > > class.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example sage will not use ''sva'' to

mean

> > 2nd

> > > > as

> > > > > > well

> > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > 3rd.Then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > we cannot interpret.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly Rashi and navamsha will not be

> > > > represented

> > > > > > > > using the

> > > > > > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > word.Rashi/Kshethra/Riksha/Bhvana/Lagna

etc

> > are

> > > > > > synonyms

> > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > ifthey

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > are used for navamsha then what is the

whole

> > > > purpose

> > > > > > > > behind

> > > > > > > > > > > > defintion.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand sva was used for iems

from

> > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > classes.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > This wasin mind while making such a

> > statement.I

> > > > will

> > > > > > try

> > > > > > > > my

> > > > > > > > > > best

> > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > polish my style of writing.I accept my

> > > > limitations in

> > > > > > > > writing.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have not understood your question or

the

> > > > intent

> > > > > > behind

> > > > > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas are divisions, within a rasi,

ruled

> > by

> > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > grahas.

> > > > > > > > > > > > So

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one wants t look at Vargas falling in

lagna

> > the

> > > > shad

> > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > will

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the rasi equivalent occurring at lagna

> > position

> > > > in

> > > > > > the 6

> > > > > > > > > > > > divisional

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > charts of Rashi, Hora, Dreshkana,

Navamsha,

> > > > > > > > Dwaadashamsha

> > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamsha. Or at least this is what I

have

> > > > learnt.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sages did not use words in vain or

context.

> > I

> > > > > > agree. But

> > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean they used the words to mean only

one

> > thing

> > > > > > always.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I never said that the meaning can be

> > changed to

> > > > > > suit our

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > convenience and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would request you not to attribute

such

> > > > > > sentiments to

> > > > > > > > me.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However I do say that word are used in

> > different

> > > > > > > > contexts to

> > > > > > > > > > > > mean

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different things, especially in Sanskrit

> > texts

> > > > of

> > > > > > > > Jyotish. I

> > > > > > > > > > > > have,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > just

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a few minutes back use of " Sva " with

> > different

> > > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > places by Varaha Mihira to you. I hope

you

> > do

> > > > not

> > > > > > also

> > > > > > > > > > attribute

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words that you attributed to me to the

> > venerated

> > > > > > Varaha

> > > > > > > > > > Mihira.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar,.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pls tell me what you mean by

shadvargas of

> > > > > > lagna.How

> > > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > find

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them.Do you go by ownership or

placement

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (Rashi/navamsha/dwadshamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc).

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are shlokas in Varahamihiras

text

> > which

> > > > > > > > > > says ,Okarkshe

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Purushamshakae.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which means in Ojarashi and Oja amsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As per me sages will not use any words

> > out of

> > > > > > > > context.If

> > > > > > > > > > he

> > > > > > > > > > > > wants

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > say amsha he will mention it.He will

not

> > use

> > > > > > Rashi to

> > > > > > > > > > mean as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > amsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ojarkshe is Oja Rashi.Similarly

Paparkshe

> > is

> > > > Papa

> > > > > > > > Rashi.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you want to say as per our

conveninece

> > we

> > > > can

> > > > > > > > change

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of riksha/rashi/bhavana/bhavas as

navamsha

> > > > then i

> > > > > > > > cannot

> > > > > > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anything.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can only respect your views.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

40>,

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will tell you why that happens.

You

> > begin

> > > > with

> > > > > > > > quoting

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then give a sutra from Jaimini as

being

> > > > said by

> > > > > > > > > > Parashara.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Interpretation of sutras is not the

> > easiest

> > > > of

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > things,

> > > > > > > > > > > > more

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > so

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jaimini's Upadesha sutras. That the

> > sutras

> > > > use

> > > > > > > > > > KaTaPaYaadi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > encryption

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > makes them even more difficult to

> > > > interpret. I

> > > > > > am

> > > > > > > > sure

> > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > noticed

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this when Sreenadh interpreted the

> > > > KaTaPaYaadi

> > > > > > > > Varga in

> > > > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > > wrong

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fashion.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then there is your insistence to let

> > > > Sanskrit

> > > > > > > > grammar

> > > > > > > > > > give

> > > > > > > > > > > > a go

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that can make interpretation of a

> > shloka or

> > > > > > sutra

> > > > > > > > fit

> > > > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposition.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any of the Shodasha Vargas of a rasi

> > can be

> > > > > > > > referred to

> > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far as I know in astrology, when one

> > talks

> > > > of

> > > > > > Varga,

> > > > > > > > > > without

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > qualifying

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it, or Amshas that generally refers

to

> > > > navamsha

> > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dwadashaamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another reason that we can not

agree, or

> > > > seem to

> > > > > > > > agree,

> > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reluctant to call a navamsha by the

> > > > nomenclature

> > > > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > rasi.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > makes it difficult to convey what I

> > mean to

> > > > say

> > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > English

> > > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the language of the net and which

both

> > of us

> > > > > > know.

> > > > > > > > Now

> > > > > > > > > > > > since you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > want to use the word Mesha navamsha

as

> > > > Mesha is

> > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > rashi

> > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > logic it can not be a navamsha, it

> > becomes

> > > > > > > > difficult to

> > > > > > > > > > > > convey

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understand by the texts.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will like to draw your attention

to

> > the

> > > > > > literal

> > > > > > > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi. It means a heap and nothing

more.

> > In

> > > > > > astrology

> > > > > > > > > > since

> > > > > > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > encompasses many stars that make up

a

> > > > nakshatra

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > 1/12th

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > division of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the zodiac is called a Rasi. Or at

least

> > > > this

> > > > > > is my

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason of using the word rasi for

the

> > 1/12th

> > > > > > > > division

> > > > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > zodiac.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not agree that by Chandra in

Guru

> > > > Varga it

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > meant

> > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandra is being seen. To me we are

> > talking

> > > > > > about is

> > > > > > > > > > whether

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandra is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > falling in the Varga of Guru in

which

> > ever

> > > > rasi

> > > > > > he

> > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > occupying.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Navamsha we see whether Chandra is

> > occupying

> > > > > > Pisces

> > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sagittarius

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > navamsha. I also do not agree that

> > there are

> > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > Chandra

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of any

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > planet for that matter. The 16

Vargas

> > that

> > > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > > > talks

> > > > > > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that of a Rasi, beginning from the

Rashi

> > > > itself.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the Vargas are not owned by

different

> > > > > > planets,

> > > > > > > > pray

> > > > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the sage

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tell us to see occupation of a

friend,

> > own

> > > > etc.

> > > > > > > > Varga to

> > > > > > > > > > > > assess

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > strength of a planet in the Varga

> > concerned?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have interacted with many

astrologers

> > of

> > > > > > > > yesteryears

> > > > > > > > > > (with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > respect to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > my age group) and have never found

them

> > > > > > claiming the

> > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only lagna and planets.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you insist that sage Parashara

gave

> > the

> > > > SU.

> > > > > > 52.-

> > > > > > > > > > " Tatra

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bhrigwongaraka

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > varge paradarikaha " , perhaps you

are

> > > > referring

> > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > > edition

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BPHS

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that I do not have. However I do

have

> > that

> > > > in

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > umpteen

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > texts on Jaimini that I do have in

my

> > > > library.

> > > > > > And

> > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > way,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > scholars have interpreted that to

mean

> > 9th

> > > > from

> > > > > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the 2nd.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not agree that a graha can

> > > > simultaneously

> > > > > > > > occupy

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars, simultaneously, as

is

> > being

> > > > > > > > suggested

> > > > > > > > > > > > whether in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in any of the Vargas. It could only

> > occupy

> > > > one

> > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > other.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have seen you arguing in favor of

> > looking

> > > > at

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > Shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grahas Venus and Mars. I would like

you

> > to

> > > > look

> > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > all

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > six

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > charts

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whose Vargas together are referred

as

> > > > > > Shadvargas and

> > > > > > > > > > try to

> > > > > > > > > > > > find

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > out

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whether they do indeed contain the 6

> > Vargas

> > > > of

> > > > > > Venus

> > > > > > > > > > and 6

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars. I am sure that you will find

them

> > to

> > > > > > contain

> > > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > 5

> > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > each of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the grahas. Once you confirm this by

> > > > looking at

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > 6

> > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > self,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tell me how one can look at

Shadvargas

> > of

> > > > Venus

> > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested to be the interpretation

of

> > the

> > > > sutra

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > you are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > referring to.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You may also be interested to know

that

> > > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > talks

> > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > AK

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > falling in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Varga of Chandra, Mars or Venus

also

> > > > having

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > roving

> > > > > > > > > > > > eye

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wives. So the combination of Venus

and

> > Mars

> > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > giving

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the roving eye for other's wives,

that

> > you

> > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > advancing as

> > > > > > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > standalone

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > principle, may not, necessarily, be

the

> > way

> > > > the

> > > > > > sage

> > > > > > > > > > looked

> > > > > > > > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > their

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > interpretation.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Those were written by me.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am very dissappointed to see

> > > > that ,inspite

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > repeating

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > numerus

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > times,you are unable to get what

i am

> > > > saying.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not talking about rashis

lorded

> > by

> > > > > > shukra or

> > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > here.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > am

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > talking about the shadvargas

vargas of

> > > > mars

> > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > shukra.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pls tell me what is the meaning of

> > > > shadvargas

> > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > simply

> > > > > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lagna.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the rashi in which lagna is

> > > > placed.The

> > > > > > > > > > navamshaka of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna,Trimshamshaka of Lagna

etc.Can

> > we

> > > > see

> > > > > > any

> > > > > > > > > > lordship

> > > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > say.Lagna does not own any rashi.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly when we say vargas of

> > Venus -It

> > > > > > means

> > > > > > > > Rashi

> > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > Venus,Hora,navamshaka,drekkana,trimshamshaka

> > > > > > etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shadvarga is never the rashi

owned by

> > a

> > > > > > > > planet.Then

> > > > > > > > > > Lagna

> > > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > never

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have shadvarga.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we

say,Chandra in

> > > > Guru

> > > > > > > > Varga - We

> > > > > > > > > > > > are not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > seeing

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the shadvarga of Guru,but that of

> > > > chandra.Is

> > > > > > > > chandra

> > > > > > > > > > > > placed in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guru

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rashi?Is Chandra navamshaka in

Guru

> > > > Rashi.Is

> > > > > > > > Chandra

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamshaka in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guru Rashi etc is what we

check.If so

> > > > chandras

> > > > > > > > vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > fall in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > guru

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashis or we say chandra is in

> > guruvargas.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the same reason schoplars of

> > > > yesteryears

> > > > > > > > always

> > > > > > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for our natal Lagna and Planets.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand you are taking

them

> > as

> > > > > > owned by

> > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > planet.Every

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > shadvarga that derive is like

> > that.You may

> > > > > > check

> > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > shri

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Narasimha,how he is deriving it

for

> > his

> > > > > > software.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the same reason Bhrigu and

Angara

> > can

> > > > have

> > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > together

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rashi which is 2nd from

> > Karakamsha.Sage

> > > > > > clearly

> > > > > > > > talks

> > > > > > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vargas from both.Moreover the next

> > shloka

> > > > is

> > > > > > > > talking

> > > > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus together or aspecting the

2nd

> > from

> > > > > > > > karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we go by your

> > > > > > explanation,we

> > > > > > > > > > have to

> > > > > > > > > > > > opt

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just one among shukra or Mars

which

> > is not

> > > > > > > > > > proper.Their

> > > > > > > > > > > > Joint

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > influence creates sexual drive.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I request you to kindly read this

with

> > > > care.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rspect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In

 

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > 40>,

> > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The below remarks are not from

my

> > mail

> > > > at

> > > > > > all.

> > > > > > > > I do

> > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > know

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think I would write that. I am

sure

> > you

> > > > know

> > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > my

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > style

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of writing at all.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " >From my experience -Mars +

Venus

> > > > creates

> > > > > > > > certin

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced

this.Why

> > are

> > > > you

> > > > > > > > going

> > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > owned by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just one of them and that too

> > without a

> > > > > > > > planetary

> > > > > > > > > > link

> > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > worrying me.Shri Rath has

translated

> > > > so,i

> > > > > > > > agree.But

> > > > > > > > > > i

> > > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath

will

> > > > definitely

> > > > > > > > correct

> > > > > > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > benfit

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of jyotish community. "

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As to why I said they could not

be

> > > > having

> > > > > > their

> > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > together in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi or Bhava does not need any

> > deeper

> > > > > > > > explanation.

> > > > > > > > > > If

> > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > looking

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at the 2nd from Karakamsha in

the

> > rasi

> > > > > > chart,

> > > > > > > > as you

> > > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > right, you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > could not have both Mesha and

> > Vrishabha

> > > > or

> > > > > > Tula

> > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vrishchika

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd from the Karakamsha, is that

> > not so?

> > > > > > > > Similarly

> > > > > > > > > > if in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the 2nd from Karakamsha is to be

> > seen,

> > > > the

> > > > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > > > > could be

> > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > navamshas.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I though you meant so.Because

in

> > > > > > subsequent

> > > > > > > > lines

> > > > > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > see

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and Karakamsha being used for

the

> > same

> > > > > > > > > > purpose.But if

> > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there are other places where

> > swamsha

> > > > is

> > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagnamsha ,then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i can trust you if you can

point

> > me to

> > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > This

> > > > > > > > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problem and in no way it will

> > affect

> > > > us.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars can ofcourse

have

> > their

> > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > in a

> > > > > > > > > > > > single

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashi or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bhava.Venus can have navamsha

> > > > there,Mars

> > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there,Venus can have

Trimshamsha

> > > > > > there,Mars

> > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there,they both can have

drekkana

> > > > there

> > > > > > etc

> > > > > > > > etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus sage is talking about

Bhrigu

> > and

> > > > > > Angara

> > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > (as

> > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > identified gramattically)

having

> > varga

> > > > > > there

> > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > it is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > very

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > much

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you note the next line -

Sage is

> > > > talking

> > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > joining or aspecting the 2nd

from

> > > > > > Karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From my experience -Mars +

Venus

> > > > creates

> > > > > > > > certin

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced

> > this.Why

> > > > are

> > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > going

> > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > owned by just one of them and

> > that too

> > > > > > > > without a

> > > > > > > > > > > > planetary

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > link is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really worrying me.Shri Rath

has

> > > > > > translated

> > > > > > > > so,i

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > agree.But i

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath

will

> > > > > > definitely

> > > > > > > > > > correct

> > > > > > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > benfit of jyotish community.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am surprised as to why you

say

> > > > so.That

> > > > > > they

> > > > > > > > > > cannot

> > > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > together.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pardeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In

> > <%

40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > 40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > > > 40>,

> > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have never said that I do

not

> > > > think

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different where the context

> > demands

> > > > so.

> > > > > > At

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > time I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammar can be put to rest

to

> > in the

> > > > > > name of

> > > > > > > > > > > > context,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sound

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course if you want

contextual

> > > > > > translation

> > > > > > > > > > only,

> > > > > > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > certainly say that

the " Meshadi

> > > > raashige

> > > > > > > > > > swaamshe "

> > > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > always be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > translated as " Falling in

Mesha

> > > > > > navamsha in

> > > > > > > > > > Mesha

> > > > > > > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc. " .

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way " Tatra

> > Bhrigwonkaraka

> > > > > > Varge " ,

> > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mention, does

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean varga of both Venus and

> > mars,

> > > > but

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus OR

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > due to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the grammar only. varga of

two

> > > > planets

> > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > fall

> > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bhava/amsha/rasi whether in

> > rasi or

> > > > > > > > Navamsha or

> > > > > > > > > > any

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > other

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Grammatically,what you are

> > saying

> > > > is

> > > > > > also

> > > > > > > > > > true.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But Jyotish defintions

play a

> > > > > > preceding

> > > > > > > > role

> > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > choosing

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammatical meaning.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example one meaning of

> > > > > > labhe ,Swamshe

> > > > > > > > etc

> > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 11th

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But if we go by that we

will

> > > > > > definitely

> > > > > > > > > > translate

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamshe in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > meshadi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashige as ''in

> > Swamsha'',thereby

> > > > > > > > translating

> > > > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > full

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart.This as you too

> > agree,then

> > > > > > cannot

> > > > > > > > pass

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > test,of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > subsequent shlokas.I

> > understand

> > > > gladly

> > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > too

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > agree that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha and karakamsha

are the

> > > > same.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So the context decides

> > > > plural/singular

> > > > > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > necessarily

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the ''E''

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as you have rightly

mentioned.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But in essence what i

want to

> > say

> > > > > > is ''E''

> > > > > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > always

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean ''in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the'' as you have

> > > > > > interpreted.Labheshe is

> > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example.Karake

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus it can very well mean

> > Varga

> > > > of

> > > > > > > > Shukra and

> > > > > > > > > > > > Mars-

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > six vargas or one varga.

(Not

> > > > lordship)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka

Varge -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra -(There) In the

second

> > from

> > > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga or Vargas of Venus

and

> > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now why should we need two

> > > > > > qualifiesrs for

> > > > > > > > > > > > destination

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (1)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from karakamsha 2)in the

> > vargas

> > > > of?)-

> > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > we had

> > > > > > > > > > > > another

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your interpretation is

> > right.That

> > > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > will

> > > > > > > > > > > > answer

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > question -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who is in the vargas of ?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly - Swamshad dhane

> > Shukrar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Swamshad dhane is already

> > > > pointing to

> > > > > > > > > > destination-

> > > > > > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > need

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > another ''in the'' vargas

of.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we

say in

> > > > the 2nd

> > > > > > > > from

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > karakamsha if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mars and venus are

present,it

> > > > fits in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammatically.Moreover

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i had

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentioned rashi lordship

> > without

> > > > > > planetary

> > > > > > > > > > link

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (placement/amsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is too general.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In

> > > >

> > <%40> <%

> > 40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > 40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > > > 40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > > > > > 40>,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I may be wrong but

the " E "

> > by

> > > > itself

> > > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > point

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > word Shadvarga

indicating 6

> > > > Vargas

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > group

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (though it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more than one unit) and

> > > > so " Varge " ,

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > singular is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " E " means " in " . I would

be

> > > > happy if

> > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > example

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of " Varge "

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plural

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can be given.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not at all think

that

> > > > Vargaka

> > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > singular and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargake

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge is plural, at all.

> > Both

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > manner of

> > > > > > > > > > > > using

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > indicates singular. it

is

> > no use

> > > > > > > > projecting

> > > > > > > > > > > > what is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clearly

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saptami

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vibhakti and singular as

> > being a

> > > > > > plural

> > > > > > > > > > word. If

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dvivachana it may

> > > > become " VargyoH "

> > > > > > > > > > or " VargeSu "

> > > > > > > > > > > > (for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bahuvachan)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge. Perhaps some

Sanskrit

> > > > > > scholar on

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > list

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > comment

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on this.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, much as I would

like it

> > to

> > > > > > resolve,

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > issue

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > remains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unresolved.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will give you a

relevant

> > > > > > example to

> > > > > > > > > > explain

> > > > > > > > > > > > how

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VarGE

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > context of plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna Shad-VargaKE -

Is

> > > > pointing

> > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > all

> > > > > > > > > > > > vargas -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plural.You

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > may

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > note

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that the grammatical

> > ending is

> > > > > > > > with ''E''

> > > > > > > > > > > > showing

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plurals

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expressed with such an

> > ending.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now from

Vrishamsha''Ka''

> > and

> > > > > > Tulamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > example we

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > conclude

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VargaKA and VarGA can

be

> > used

> > > > for

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > purpose in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ekavachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > singular form and

VargaKE

> > and

> > > > > > VarGE

> > > > > > > > can be

> > > > > > > > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bahuvachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plural form.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope this may help

us in

> > > > > > resolving

> > > > > > > > our

> > > > > > > > > > > > issue.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------

----

> > ----

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this

> > > > incoming

> > > > > > > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Checked by AVG Free

> > Edition.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 /

Virus

> > > > Database:

> > > > > > > > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of

this

> > > > message

> > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > been

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------

----

> > ----

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this

> > incoming

> > > > > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Checked by AVG Free

Edition.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus

> > Database:

> > > > > > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this

> > message

> > > > have

> > > > > > been

> > > > > > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------

----

> > ----

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this

incoming

> > > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus

Database:

> > > > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this

message

> > have

> > > > been

> > > > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -

----

> > ----

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

> > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message

have

> > been

> > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----

----

> > ----

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have

been

> > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------

----

> > ----

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > 269.10.2/890 -

> > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > -------------

----

> > ----

> > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

269.10.2/890 -

> > > > Release

> > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > -----------------

----

> > ----

> > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/890 -

> > Release

> > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

removed]

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > ---------------------

----

> > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.4/896 -

Release

> > > > Date:

> > > > > > 7/11/2007 4:09 PM

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandrashekhar ji

 

For me knowledge has no barriers like Region or Religion.

 

I do not think i have said Bhatolpala is wrong.And i do not think

Bhatolpapala can be wrong.On the other hand the sanskrit english

trasnlators of bhatolpala might have committed a mistake.

 

Dashadhayi is not a mere commentary,it gives explanation and no one

can misinterpret.

 

Ofcourse the ones havign PHD and all are learned.No doubt.But we

cannot equate them with the author of Dashadhayayi.

 

Bhatolpala and Dashadhyayi may be equated.But translation of

Bhatolpala into english and dashadhyayi may not be compared.It is my

view and you can very well disagree.

 

Respect

Pradeep

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> Have I said I was not happy with Dashaadhyaayi? If you remember our

old

> correspondence, I think it was I who mentioned that Prashna Marga

talks

> highly about Dashaadhyaayi. My point is about only accepting the

> interpretation of Dashaadhyaayi and not others. If you remember you

> rejected the commentary of Bhattotpala who is considered amongst

the few

> top and contemporary commentators on Brihat jataka along with Rudra

> Bhatt and also that of Sitaram Jha a Sanskrit scholar and professor

of

> astrology with Banaras Hindu University and have always been

declaring

> that only what is said in Dashaadhyaayi, to the exclusion of all

other

> classics that are as much or more respected, is right. My comments

are

> on that part of your arguments and not on Dashaadhyaayi per-se.

>

> Saravali translation that I have with me does talk about mutual

aspect

> of Shukra and Shani from their exchanged Navamshas, so again this

> insistence of accepting only your translation is puzzling. This is

from

> the hindi " Kantimati " commentary of Saravali by Dr. Muralidhar

> Chaturvedi who was Jyotishacharya and Vidyaavaridhi (Ph.D.). By the

way

> Saravali was written by Kalyanvarma who is said to have hailed from

> Bundelkhand in Hindi heartland.

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

>

>

> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >

> > Kindly read what was the opinion of dashadhyayi before you may

> > criticize the valuable text.After mentioning the whe shloka as

> > one,the author said Thatha cha Saravalyam.

> >

> > Now as both of us understand cha as ''and'',does it mean the whole

> > shloka is one or are they two,especially as cha comes

> > after ''shaukre -belonging to shukra''.

> >

> > As you were not happy with Dashadhyayi,there were views from jeeva

> > sharma,sruthakeerthi,Garga(giantly figures).Now Saravli has been

> > quoted.

> >

> > Respect

> > Pradeep

> >

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > If you think " ca " does not mean AND, in Sanskrit then there may

not

> > be

> > > any point in discussing this any further. And if translations of

> > all

> > > other learned scholars are to be rejected in favour of

> > Dashaadhyaayi,

> > > then there is no use discussing what Parashara said too as

> > Dashaadhyaayi

> > > is a commentary on Brihat jataka.

> > >

> > > Personally, I do not think that only Dashaadhyaayi encompasses

all

> > the

> > > vedic astrological knowledge though it is one amongst the

respected

> > texts.

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > >

> > > > If you remember our first discussion,which is present in the

> > > > archives,you were only mentioning about shukra and saturn in

> > > > paraspara amsha and aspecting each other.You had added that

these

> > are

> > > > aspects in Trimshamsha chakra.

> > > >

> > > > I had then quoted the second line which points to Lagna being

> > that of

> > > > Shukra and its navamsha in ghata rashi.

> > > >

> > > > For which your reply was we are looking into different texts.

> > > >

> > > > You have only quoted the 2nd line from Saravali.

> > > >

> > > > The full shloka in Saravali is as follows -

> > > > Shukra Sithau yadi paraspara bhaga samsthau

> > > > shaukre cha drishti pathagavudaye ghatamshe

> > > >

> > > > Thus the first line does not contain any aspect mentioned.How

can

> > we

> > > > say that the first line is stand alone.Do you say if Shukra

and

> > > > Saturn are in each others amsha a lady will behave like this.

> > > > The second line makes it complete.The lagna should be that of

> > > > shukra,saturn and venus should aspect each other,and lagnamsha

> > should

> > > > fall in Ghatamsha.

> > > >

> > > > Thus Dashadhyayi kara is crystal clear on what Saravali is

> > > > saying.Atleast for this shloka i feel there is no ambiguity

> > needed.

> > > >

> > > > Respect

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > > Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > If Dashaadhyaayi thinks Saravali is a standard text to rely

> > upon (

> > > > as

> > > > > you have quoted a reference therein quoting Saravali to

support

> > > > some

> > > > > interpretation) why say that other concepts in Saravali are

> > wrong?

> > > > > Saravali says " Shaukre ca drishtipathagaavudaye ghataamshe "

etc.

> > > > > indicating the necessity of exchange of amshas and mutual

aspect

> > > > between

> > > > > Shukra and Shani as concurrent condition for the first yoga

to

> > > > fructify.

> > > > > And then goes on to say that if for a lagna having rasi of

> > Shukra

> > > > and

> > > > > navamsha of Shani similar results would ensue. GhataaMshe

has

> > been

> > > > > interpreted as the amsha of Shani and not merely amsha of

> > Kumbha by

> > > > many

> > > > > translators.

> > > > >

> > > > > I can not comment on the interpretation of Dashaadhyaayikar

of

> > the

> > > > > shloka but the shloka from Brihat Jataka that I have also

says

> > > > > " driksamsthaavasitasito parasparaamshe shoke vaa yadi ghata

> > > > > raashisambhavoMshaH. " followed by the next line that I did

not

> > find

> > > > > necessary to quote as it does not talk about the yoga but

only

> > the

> > > > > results, which you have already quoted and I felt may not be

> > > > necessary

> > > > > to post on line.

> > > > >

> > > > > That there are two distinct yogas is also not new to

> > translators of

> > > > > Brihat jataka. Since you accept that the first line does say

> > about

> > > > > occupation of each others amsha AND aspect on each other is

> > indeed

> > > > > covered in the first line, the reluctance to accept aspects

in

> > > > specific

> > > > > cases is something that I am not able to understand.

> > > > >

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I can clearly understand your position.Especially as you

have

> > > > > > said,the texts that we are referring to are different.Here

> > comes

> > > > the

> > > > > > importance of Dashadhyayi.After my explanation you can

also

> > see

> > > > that

> > > > > > it is not only dashadhyayi ,but Saravali as well is

having the

> > > > same

> > > > > > opinion on the shloka explained below.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As i have mentioned yesterday,dashadhyayi is not covering

> > just the

> > > > > > first 10 chapters as the name suggests.For example let me

> > take a

> > > > > > chapter towards the end ,chapter 22-Sthree Jataka Adhyaya.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thalakkulathu Govinda Bhattathiri has given

> > interpretations,for

> > > > all

> > > > > > the shlokas from 1 through 16,except shloka 13, while

> > interpreting

> > > > > > chapters 1 through 10. Shloka 13 as you can see is pretty

> > straight

> > > > > > forward.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Now let us take the shloka which as per you is referring

> > > > > > to ''Trimshamsha Chakra'' with aspects therein.Firstly the

> > results

> > > > > > for planets being placed in rashis belonging to Mesha

> > onwards,and

> > > > > > within that Trimshamshas belonging to Mars onwards is

> > explained

> > > > and

> > > > > > ends by shloka 6.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Now let us take

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ''Driksamstha VasithaSithau Parasparamshe

> > > > > > Shaukre Va yadi Ghata Rashi Sambhavomsha''

> > > > > > Next 2 lines explains the result.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As per you,there is only a reference regarding Venus and

> > Saturn

> > > > > > aspecting each other and also in each others Amsha.This is

> > covered

> > > > > > in the first line.My worry is where has the second line

gone

> > in

> > > > the

> > > > > > text that you are having.Either it was not interpreted or

it

> > was

> > > > > > inadvertently got missed out from printing.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Now Dashadhyayi says -

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Driksamsthau ithyadi Yoga dvayam - Two Yogas.First one is

> > > > > > corresponding to the first line as we have seen.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Shaukre Rashau Yadi Kumbhamshe Udethi ..Thatha

dvitheeyam -

> > the

> > > > > > second.Meaning ,The Ascendant should be either Tula or

> > Vrishabha

> > > > and

> > > > > > it should have Kumbhamsha(Kumbha is Ghata - Ghata Rashi

> > > > > > Sambhavomsha).

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Now the author says, as per some these two can be taken

as one

> > > > yoga

> > > > > > as well(Saravali too says so).

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Parasparamshagatha Vasitha Sithou Paraspara Drishtau

Shaukre

> > > > > > Rashavudayathi Kumbhamshakashcha Bhavathi Yadee - then the

> > > > > > result.And the author says -T hatha Cha Saravalyam.And

quotes

> > > > > > corresponding shloka from Saravali,where again the said

line

> > is

> > > > > > present(sanskrit).Thus it says - For a Lady to have such a

> > strong

> > > > > > sexual desire - Purusha Veshadhari(One dressign up as a

man -

> > thus

> > > > > > lesbian),her ascendant should belong to Venus and the

amsha

> > of her

> > > > > > ascendant should fall in Kumbha Rashi,and in her chart

Saturn

> > and

> > > > > > Venus should aspect each other and also have exchange of

> > amshas.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thus you see,in either case there is a line which is

missing

> > in

> > > > your

> > > > > > book,which helps us to understand that it is not a varga

> > chakra.I

> > > > > > dont know how it happened.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thus if Dashadhyayi was not there,then i would have also

not

> > got

> > > > any

> > > > > > opportunity to understand this in such detail.This is the

> > beauty

> > > > of

> > > > > > this text and as you know without any value ParashnaMarga

> > will not

> > > > > > praise it with such a high regard.The rest of the text is

> > great

> > > > and

> > > > > > explains every concept with authority,quoting many

sources.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I consider you with great regard(Gurusthana) and holds

respect

> > > > > > towards your views and analysis.You may kindly understand

> > that,i

> > > > > > will not misquote and misrepresent,especially when the

> > subject is

> > > > > > Jyotish.If some others in this list is having

mistrust,they

> > should

> > > > > > understand that i am not the only keralite living in this

> > universe

> > > > > > and they can seek help from others to see if i am

cheating.I

> > have

> > > > no

> > > > > > hatred towards their words.If it brings happiness to them

let

> > them

> > > > > > continue with false allegations.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I will prepare the paper and then would request your good

> > self to

> > > > > > review.I am so thankful that you have tested me with tough

> > > > questions

> > > > > > and logic,which has helped me to learn more.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%

40>, " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Purna drishte Purna Yogam Ardha Drishte ardhameva cha

> > > > > > > Pada drishte Padayogamiti gyeyam kramat phalam.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Is mentioned and hence the aspects are not about Rashi

> > drishti.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Now as i have mentioned in the past,though the name is

> > > > > > > dashadhyayi,the author covers shlokas,from most of the

> > chapters

> > > > as

> > > > > > > and when he finds some interrelationship or link.This i

> > consider

> > > > > > as a

> > > > > > > real blessing.Now how amshakas are interpreted,has been

> > > > > > > demonstrated ,for numerous contexts,and thus forming a

> > guideline

> > > > > > for

> > > > > > > other shloka interpretations.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I will see the shlokas,and will write back.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Transits are to be seen no doubt from the rasis

> > synonymous to

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > navamsha rasis, but when it is sphuta it is of the

> > navamshesha

> > > > > > and

> > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > the rasis. There is a difference between the two.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I have already said I do not consider aspects in D-

charts,

> > > > > > unless

> > > > > > > > specifically mentioned in some yogas, and also that

> > barring

> > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > charts, in other varga charts I look at rashi aspects.

> > That

> > > > does

> > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > mean I should close my eyes to what is written in

other

> > > > > > respected

> > > > > > > texts.

> > > > > > > > That only means I look at charts from a different

angle.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > There is nothing in the lagna shadvargake shloka to

> > indicate

> > > > > > graded

> > > > > > > > aspects and so it does not rule out rashi drishti at

all.

> > Ans

> > > > > > since

> > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > have quoted both Parashara and Jaimini you should know

> > that

> > > > > > rashi

> > > > > > > > drishtis are valid in Parashara too and exclusively

so in

> > > > > > Jaimini.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Your translation and mine of the shlokas differ and

that

> > is

> > > > why

> > > > > > > there is

> > > > > > > > no agreement. If you expect Dashaadhyaayi to give

> > divisional

> > > > > > charts

> > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > their interpretations, that is not possible as Varaha

> > Mihira

> > > > on

> > > > > > > whose

> > > > > > > > work it is only a commentary does not speak of it and

it

> > is

> > > > > > > commentary

> > > > > > > > on only 10 of the 18 adhayaayas of Brihat jataka. If

you

> > read

> > > > > > > Brihat

> > > > > > > > jataka carefully, you will see reference o aspects in

> > > > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > > there.

> > > > > > > > Since you have many times claimed superiority of

> > Dashaadhyaayi

> > > > > > over

> > > > > > > many

> > > > > > > > of the more ancient and respected classics, I find it

> > strange

> > > > as

> > > > > > to

> > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > you do not want to accept what is said in the original

> > text on

> > > > > > > which

> > > > > > > > Dashaadhyaayi is only a commentary and that too on 10

> > > > adhyaayas

> > > > > > as

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > name suggests (that does not, of course, make it any

less

> > > > > > > respectable).

> > > > > > > > There are many references to planets being placed in a

> > > > navamsha,

> > > > > > > which

> > > > > > > > is not identical with the rasi whose name the navamsha

> > enjoys,

> > > > > > and

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > results from them in the 21st adhyaaya. How do you map

> > back

> > > > such

> > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > navamsha to the rasi and what should be the logic? You

> > also

> > > > see

> > > > > > > > reference to Guru occupying own Trimshamsha,

irrespective

> > of

> > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > in the

> > > > > > > > same adhayaaya. There are too many references like

this to

> > > > > > question

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > theory that the amshas need always be mapped back to

> > identical

> > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > rasi chart.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Could you tell why this reluctance to accept Varaha

> > Mihira?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Meshamshe, Vrishamshe Transit results can be seen

from

> > Mesha

> > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > Vrishabha rashis.Thus you are aware of what i am

> > > > > > saying.Moreover

> > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > have seen paparkshe.we have seen meshadi rashige

> > swamshe.we

> > > > > > have

> > > > > > > seen

> > > > > > > > > that bhrigwonkaraka varge ,as per your understanding

> > cannot

> > > > > > > satisfy

> > > > > > > > > both mars and venus.The very next shloka is talking

> > about

> > > > mars

> > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > venus yuti or aspecting.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Now we can forget all these as you are not williing

to

> > > > accept

> > > > > > > > > rashi,riksha etc as valid reasoning.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > We have seen Lagna shadvargake shloka with aspectual

> > > > > > > grades,proving

> > > > > > > > > that they ae not rashi drishtis.Couple of days back

and

> > many

> > > > > > > times in

> > > > > > > > > the past,i have heard from you that you don't

support

> > > > aspects

> > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > Vargas.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > If you still have the sam views,then to understand

> > > > shadvargake

> > > > > > > > > shloka,we have to see planets aspecting lagna

in ''six

> > > > > > charts''.As

> > > > > > > > > lagna can fall in any rashi,you have to accept

aspects

> > fully

> > > > > > in

> > > > > > > all

> > > > > > > > > Varga charts.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > This is relevant to our discussion as lagnamsha is

also

> > > > part of

> > > > > > > > > shadvargas of lagna.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > As you are aware ,the BPHS translator too has

expressed

> > his

> > > > > > > concern.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>,

Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > How could I think shadvarga of lagna is shadvarga

of

> > > > rashi?

> > > > > > > Lagna

> > > > > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > > > > point on the eastern horizon at the time of birth

of a

> > > > > > jataka.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > There is no dispute about what is lagnamsha and

what

> > is

> > > > > > > karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > > > all. At the same time when reference is to a graha

> > > > falling in

> > > > > > > > > Lagnamsha

> > > > > > > > > > it refers to the navamsha rasi (or sector ruled by

> > one of

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > rasis

> > > > > > > > > of a

> > > > > > > > > > planet, barring Sun and Chandra if you like it

that

> > way)

> > > > in

> > > > > > > which

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > lagnamsha falls. Now that being so where is the

shubha

> > > > graha

> > > > > > > > > supposed to

> > > > > > > > > > fall in the shloka I quoted? Same with the Shubh

> > graha in

> > > > > > > > > Karakamsha and

> > > > > > > > > > needing drishti of shubha graha on it. It is easy

to

> > say

> > > > that

> > > > > > > > > these

> > > > > > > > > > need to be seen in rasi, but for lack of the

> > reference to

> > > > > > rasi,

> > > > > > > > > there,

> > > > > > > > > > there is no reason to assume that it does not

refer to

> > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > rasi.

> > > > > > > > > > The reference to grahas

> > in " Meshaamshe " , " Vrishabhaamshe "

> > > > > > etc

> > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > quite

> > > > > > > > > > clear, in BPHS.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Of course Yes,you are correct.Varga is found for

> > this

> > > > > > bindu

> > > > > > > and in

> > > > > > > > > > > the case of planets their degree decides.The

rest

> > you

> > > > have

> > > > > > > stated

> > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > also as per definition.My point was made under

the

> > > > > > impression

> > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > you have a view that,shadvarga of Lagna is

> > shadvarga of

> > > > a

> > > > > > > > > rashi.If so

> > > > > > > > > > > it is not.Shad varga is found for Lagna bindu.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > The full Rashi/Kshethra in which Lagna bindu

falls

> > > > becomes

> > > > > > its

> > > > > > > > > first

> > > > > > > > > > > Varga.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > The Translation is entiterely correct and no

one can

> > > > > > > > > contradict.This

> > > > > > > > > > > is similar to one planet aspecting shadvargas of

> > lagna.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Lagnamsha is already covered in the shadvargas

of

> > > > > > > > > lagna.Karakamsha is

> > > > > > > > > > > similar too.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Now let us see it on a chart.Karkamasha is in

> > > > > > Dhanu.Jupiter is

> > > > > > > > > placed

> > > > > > > > > > > in Mithuna Rashi.Shubha graha is aspecting

> > Karakamsha

> > > > Lagna

> > > > > > > > > > > (Rashi).Similarly Lagnamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > You are already aware of the rules for aspects.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I see your point of view. anyway even within

> > > > shadvargas

> > > > > > we

> > > > > > > look

> > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > degree of a planet falling within a certain

span

> > of

> > > > > > degrees

> > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > particular bindu.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that rashi is a Varga and my question

is

> > if

> > > > one

> > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > look at

> > > > > > > > > > > > aspects in one Varga why not in other Vargas?

I am

> > > > sure

> > > > > > you

> > > > > > > know

> > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > personally I use navamsha to find only the

> > strength of

> > > > > > > grahas,

> > > > > > > > > but

> > > > > > > > > > > there

> > > > > > > > > > > > is no reason to rule out aspects in Navamshas

or

> > other

> > > > > > > charts

> > > > > > > > > > > totally.

> > > > > > > > > > > > One of the raj yogas mentioned by Parashara

talks

> > of

> > > > > > aspect

> > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > shubha

> > > > > > > > > > > > grahas on the karakamsha and Lagnamsha which

> > should

> > > > also

> > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > tenanted by

> > > > > > > > > > > > Shubha grahas, leaving no doubt as to where

the

> > > > aspects

> > > > > > are

> > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > seen.

> > > > > > > > > > > > And for the record the translation to that

effect

> > is

> > > > by

> > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > eminent

> > > > > > > > > > > > astrologer who was Professor of astrology in

> > Banaras

> > > > > > Hindu

> > > > > > > > > > > University.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna as a bindu was mentioned for driving

home

> > the

> > > > > > > shadvarga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > calculations,if any members were having

> > doubts.For

> > > > > > > shadvarga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > calculation of planets too we need the

bindu or

> > > > degree

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > > > > > > within a rashi, as you are aware.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > We have to look at Rashis.This is so because

> > Rashi

> > > > > > (one 30

> > > > > > > > > degree

> > > > > > > > > > > > > sector ) is the first varga.As this Varga is

> > > > > > synonymous

> > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > Bhava

> > > > > > > > > > > > > houses are analysed w.r to Rashis.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If lagna is a bindu a you propose, and

nothing

> > > > more,

> > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > how

> > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > indicate an entire rasi? Now if this is

> > correct,

> > > > and

> > > > > > > > > technically

> > > > > > > > > > > > > it is,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > then by your reckoning there is no need to

> > look at

> > > > > > rasis

> > > > > > > > > too. Is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > what you mean to say?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If shadvargas are not related to the

portion

> > > > falling

> > > > > > in

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > lagna

> > > > > > > > > > > > > rasis,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > which holds the degree of lagna Madhya,

then

> > it

> > > > > > appears

> > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > must

> > > > > > > > > > > ask

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > sages to redefine Vargas. I doubt they

need

> > our

> > > > > > advise.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There was a purpose.I just wanted to

> > explain it

> > > > to

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > members if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some of them are not sure on what

shadvarga

> > of

> > > > > > lagna

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > how it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is calculated.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As you have said Vargas are divisions

of a

> > > > > > rashi.But

> > > > > > > > > > > shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna is not the Vargas falling in

> > Lagna.Here

> > > > > > lagna is

> > > > > > > > > not a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashi,but a bindu.Vargas are found from

a

> > > > > > degree.The

> > > > > > > > > degree

> > > > > > > > > > > of a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > planet or degree of lagna.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As you may know we do notneed six

charts to

> > > > > > dtermine

> > > > > > > > > > > shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lagna.All we need is the degree of lagna

> > and the

> > > > > > rashi

> > > > > > > > > rising.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us take an example.Lagna is at 11

> > degrees in

> > > > > > > dhanu.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us find the shadvargas of Lagna

with th

> > help

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > rising

> > > > > > > > > > > rashi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > degree.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1st Varga - The Rashi in which Lagna

bindu

> > is

> > > > > > > falling -

> > > > > > > > > Dhanu

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd Varga - The Hora in which Lagna

bindu is

> > > > > > falling -

> > > > > > > As

> > > > > > > > > 11

> > > > > > > > > > > > > degrees

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > falls in the 1st half of dhanu - Surya

Hora

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3rd Varga - The drekkana in which Lagna

> > bindu is

> > > > > > > falling -

> > > > > > > > > As

> > > > > > > > > > > 11

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > degrees falls in the 2nd 1/3rd of

dhanu -

> > > > Drekkana

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > Mesha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4th Varga - As 11 degrees falls in the

3rd

> > > > > > > > > saptamsha ,Lagna

> > > > > > > > > > > > > saptamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is Kumbha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similraly - Lagna navamsha is

Karka,Lagna

> > > > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > dhanu.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus the purpose of whole exercise was

to

> > say

> > > > that

> > > > > > > when

> > > > > > > > > we say

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > shadvargas of Lagna or Mars,it does not

> > mean the

> > > > > > > rashis

> > > > > > > > > owned

> > > > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna or Mars.But the Rashis on towhich

> > they are

> > > > > > > > > placed,having

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hora,drekkana etc etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas of Mars in the 2nd Rashi from

> > karakamsha

> > > > > > too

> > > > > > > is no

> > > > > > > > > > > > > differet.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are many meanings,that is why

Rashi is

> > > > > > called as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kshethra /Riksha /havana etc.But i don't

> > think

> > > > > > sage

> > > > > > > will

> > > > > > > > > use

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > saword to represent something belonging

to

> > same

> > > > > > class.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example sage will not use ''sva'' to

> > mean

> > > > 2nd

> > > > > > as

> > > > > > > well

> > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > 3rd.Then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we cannot interpret.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly Rashi and navamsha will not be

> > > > > > represented

> > > > > > > > > using the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > word.Rashi/Kshethra/Riksha/Bhvana/Lagna

etc

> > are

> > > > > > > synonyms

> > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > ifthey

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are used for navamsha then what is the

whole

> > > > > > purpose

> > > > > > > > > behind

> > > > > > > > > > > > > defintion.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand sva was used for iems

from

> > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > > classes.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This wasin mind while making such a

> > statement.I

> > > > > > will

> > > > > > > try

> > > > > > > > > my

> > > > > > > > > > > best

> > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > polish my style of writing.I accept my

> > > > limitations

> > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > writing.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have not understood your question

or the

> > > > > > intent

> > > > > > > behind

> > > > > > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas are divisions, within a rasi,

> > ruled by

> > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > > grahas.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > So

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one wants t look at Vargas falling in

> > lagna

> > > > the

> > > > > > shad

> > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > will

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the rasi equivalent occurring at lagna

> > > > position

> > > > > > in

> > > > > > > the 6

> > > > > > > > > > > > > divisional

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > charts of Rashi, Hora, Dreshkana,

> > Navamsha,

> > > > > > > > > Dwaadashamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamsha. Or at least this is what

I

> > have

> > > > > > learnt.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sages did not use words in vain or

> > context. I

> > > > > > > agree. But

> > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean they used the words to mean only

one

> > > > thing

> > > > > > > always.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I never said that the meaning can be

> > changed

> > > > to

> > > > > > > suit our

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > convenience and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would request you not to attribute

such

> > > > > > > sentiments to

> > > > > > > > > me.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However I do say that word are used in

> > > > different

> > > > > > > > > contexts to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > mean

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different things, especially in

Sanskrit

> > > > texts of

> > > > > > > > > Jyotish. I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > have,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a few minutes back use of " Sva " with

> > different

> > > > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > places by Varaha Mihira to you. I hope

> > you do

> > > > > > not

> > > > > > > also

> > > > > > > > > > > attribute

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words that you attributed to me to the

> > > > venerated

> > > > > > > Varaha

> > > > > > > > > > > Mihira.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar,.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pls tell me what you mean by

shadvargas

> > of

> > > > > > > lagna.How

> > > > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > find

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them.Do you go by ownership or

placement

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (Rashi/navamsha/dwadshamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc).

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are shlokas in Varahamihiras

text

> > > > which

> > > > > > > > > > > says ,Okarkshe

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Purushamshakae.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which means in Ojarashi and Oja

amsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As per me sages will not use any

words

> > out

> > > > of

> > > > > > > > > context.If

> > > > > > > > > > > he

> > > > > > > > > > > > > wants

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > say amsha he will mention it.He will

> > not use

> > > > > > > Rashi to

> > > > > > > > > > > mean as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > amsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ojarkshe is Oja Rashi.Similarly

> > Paparkshe is

> > > > > > Papa

> > > > > > > > > Rashi.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you want to say as per our

> > conveninece we

> > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > change

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of riksha/rashi/bhavana/bhavas as

> > navamsha

> > > > > > then i

> > > > > > > > > cannot

> > > > > > > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anything.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can only respect your views.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

40>,

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will tell you why that happens.

You

> > > > begin

> > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > quoting

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then give a sutra from Jaimini as

> > being

> > > > said

> > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > Parashara.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Interpretation of sutras is not

the

> > > > easiest

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > things,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > more

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jaimini's Upadesha sutras. That

the

> > sutras

> > > > > > use

> > > > > > > > > > > KaTaPaYaadi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > encryption

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > makes them even more difficult to

> > > > interpret.

> > > > > > I

> > > > > > > am

> > > > > > > > > sure

> > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > noticed

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this when Sreenadh interpreted the

> > > > > > KaTaPaYaadi

> > > > > > > > > Varga in

> > > > > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrong

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fashion.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then there is your insistence to

let

> > > > Sanskrit

> > > > > > > > > grammar

> > > > > > > > > > > give

> > > > > > > > > > > > > a go

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that can make interpretation of a

> > shloka

> > > > or

> > > > > > > sutra

> > > > > > > > > fit

> > > > > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposition.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any of the Shodasha Vargas of a

rasi

> > can

> > > > be

> > > > > > > > > referred to

> > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far as I know in astrology, when

one

> > talks

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > Varga,

> > > > > > > > > > > without

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > qualifying

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it, or Amshas that generally

refers to

> > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dwadashaamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another reason that we can not

agree,

> > or

> > > > > > seem to

> > > > > > > > > agree,

> > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reluctant to call a navamsha by

the

> > > > > > nomenclature

> > > > > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > makes it difficult to convey what

I

> > mean

> > > > to

> > > > > > say

> > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > English

> > > > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the language of the net and which

> > both of

> > > > us

> > > > > > > know.

> > > > > > > > > Now

> > > > > > > > > > > > > since you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > want to use the word Mesha

navamsha as

> > > > Mesha

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > rashi

> > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > logic it can not be a navamsha, it

> > becomes

> > > > > > > > > difficult to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > convey

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understand by the texts.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will like to draw your

attention to

> > the

> > > > > > > literal

> > > > > > > > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi. It means a heap and nothing

> > more. In

> > > > > > > astrology

> > > > > > > > > > > since

> > > > > > > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > encompasses many stars that make

up a

> > > > > > nakshatra

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > 1/12th

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > division of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the zodiac is called a Rasi. Or at

> > least

> > > > > > this

> > > > > > > is my

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason of using the word rasi for

the

> > > > 1/12th

> > > > > > > > > division

> > > > > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > zodiac.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not agree that by Chandra in

Guru

> > > > Varga

> > > > > > it

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > meant

> > > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandra is being seen. To me we

are

> > > > talking

> > > > > > > about is

> > > > > > > > > > > whether

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandra is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > falling in the Varga of Guru in

which

> > ever

> > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > he

> > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > occupying.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Navamsha we see whether Chandra is

> > > > occupying

> > > > > > > Pisces

> > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sagittarius

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > navamsha. I also do not agree that

> > there

> > > > are

> > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandra

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of any

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > planet for that matter. The 16

Vargas

> > that

> > > > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > > > > talks

> > > > > > > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that of a Rasi, beginning from the

> > Rashi

> > > > > > itself.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the Vargas are not owned by

> > different

> > > > > > > planets,

> > > > > > > > > pray

> > > > > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the sage

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tell us to see occupation of a

> > friend, own

> > > > > > etc.

> > > > > > > > > Varga to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > assess

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > strength of a planet in the Varga

> > > > concerned?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have interacted with many

> > astrologers of

> > > > > > > > > yesteryears

> > > > > > > > > > > (with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > respect to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > my age group) and have never found

> > them

> > > > > > > claiming the

> > > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only lagna and planets.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you insist that sage Parashara

> > gave the

> > > > > > SU.

> > > > > > > 52.-

> > > > > > > > > > > " Tatra

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bhrigwongaraka

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > varge paradarikaha " , perhaps you

are

> > > > > > referring

> > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > > > edition

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BPHS

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that I do not have. However I do

have

> > that

> > > > > > in

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > umpteen

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > texts on Jaimini that I do have

in my

> > > > > > library.

> > > > > > > And

> > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > way,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > scholars have interpreted that to

> > mean 9th

> > > > > > from

> > > > > > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the 2nd.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not agree that a graha can

> > > > > > simultaneously

> > > > > > > > > occupy

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars, simultaneously,

as is

> > > > being

> > > > > > > > > suggested

> > > > > > > > > > > > > whether in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in any of the Vargas. It could

only

> > occupy

> > > > > > one

> > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > other.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have seen you arguing in favor

of

> > > > looking

> > > > > > at

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grahas Venus and Mars. I would

like

> > you to

> > > > > > look

> > > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > > all

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > six

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > charts

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whose Vargas together are

referred as

> > > > > > > Shadvargas and

> > > > > > > > > > > try to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > find

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > out

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whether they do indeed contain

the 6

> > > > Vargas

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > Venus

> > > > > > > > > > > and 6

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars. I am sure that you will find

> > them to

> > > > > > > contain

> > > > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > > 5

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > each of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the grahas. Once you confirm this

by

> > > > looking

> > > > > > at

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > 6

> > > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > self,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tell me how one can look at

> > Shadvargas of

> > > > > > Venus

> > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested to be the

interpretation of

> > the

> > > > > > sutra

> > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > you are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > referring to.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You may also be interested to know

> > that

> > > > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > > talks

> > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > AK

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > falling in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Varga of Chandra, Mars or

Venus

> > also

> > > > > > having

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > roving

> > > > > > > > > > > > > eye

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wives. So the combination of

Venus and

> > > > Mars

> > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > giving

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the roving eye for other's wives,

> > that you

> > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > advancing as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > standalone

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > principle, may not, necessarily,

be

> > the

> > > > way

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > sage

> > > > > > > > > > > looked

> > > > > > > > > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > their

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > interpretation.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Those were written by me.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am very dissappointed to see

> > > > > > that ,inspite

> > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > repeating

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > numerus

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > times,you are unable to get

what i

> > am

> > > > > > saying.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not talking about rashis

> > lorded by

> > > > > > > shukra or

> > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > here.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > am

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > talking about the shadvargas

vargas

> > of

> > > > > > mars

> > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > shukra.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pls tell me what is the meaning

of

> > > > > > shadvargas

> > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > simply

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lagna.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the rashi in which lagna

is

> > > > > > placed.The

> > > > > > > > > > > navamshaka of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna,Trimshamshaka of Lagna

> > etc.Can we

> > > > > > see

> > > > > > > any

> > > > > > > > > > > lordship

> > > > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > say.Lagna does not own any

rashi.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly when we say vargas of

> > Venus -

> > > > It

> > > > > > > means

> > > > > > > > > Rashi

> > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > Venus,Hora,navamshaka,drekkana,trimshamshaka

> > > > > > > etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shadvarga is never the rashi

owned

> > by a

> > > > > > > > > planet.Then

> > > > > > > > > > > Lagna

> > > > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > never

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have shadvarga.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we

say,Chandra

> > in

> > > > Guru

> > > > > > > > > Varga - We

> > > > > > > > > > > > > are not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > seeing

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the shadvarga of Guru,but that

of

> > > > > > chandra.Is

> > > > > > > > > chandra

> > > > > > > > > > > > > placed in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guru

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rashi?Is Chandra navamshaka in

Guru

> > > > > > Rashi.Is

> > > > > > > > > Chandra

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamshaka in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guru Rashi etc is what we

check.If

> > so

> > > > > > chandras

> > > > > > > > > vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > fall in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > guru

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashis or we say chandra is in

> > > > guruvargas.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the same reason schoplars of

> > > > > > yesteryears

> > > > > > > > > always

> > > > > > > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for our natal Lagna and Planets.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand you are taking

> > them as

> > > > > > > owned by

> > > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > planet.Every

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > shadvarga that derive is like

> > that.You

> > > > may

> > > > > > > check

> > > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > shri

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Narasimha,how he is deriving it

for

> > his

> > > > > > > software.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the same reason Bhrigu and

> > Angara

> > > > can

> > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > together

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rashi which is 2nd from

> > Karakamsha.Sage

> > > > > > > clearly

> > > > > > > > > talks

> > > > > > > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vargas from both.Moreover the

next

> > > > shloka

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > talking

> > > > > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus together or aspecting the

2nd

> > from

> > > > > > > > > karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we go by

your

> > > > > > > explanation,we

> > > > > > > > > > > have to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > opt

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just one among shukra or Mars

which

> > is

> > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > proper.Their

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Joint

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > influence creates sexual drive.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I request you to kindly read

this

> > with

> > > > > > care.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rspect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In

 

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > 40>,

> > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The below remarks are not

from my

> > mail

> > > > > > at

> > > > > > > all.

> > > > > > > > > I do

> > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > know

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think I would write that. I am

> > sure

> > > > you

> > > > > > know

> > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > my

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > style

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of writing at all.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " >From my experience -Mars +

Venus

> > > > > > creates

> > > > > > > > > certin

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced

> > this.Why

> > > > are

> > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > going

> > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > owned by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just one of them and that too

> > without

> > > > a

> > > > > > > > > planetary

> > > > > > > > > > > link

> > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > worrying me.Shri Rath has

> > translated

> > > > so,i

> > > > > > > > > agree.But

> > > > > > > > > > > i

> > > > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath

will

> > > > > > definitely

> > > > > > > > > correct

> > > > > > > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > benfit

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of jyotish community. "

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As to why I said they could

not be

> > > > > > having

> > > > > > > their

> > > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > together in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi or Bhava does not need

any

> > deeper

> > > > > > > > > explanation.

> > > > > > > > > > > If

> > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > looking

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at the 2nd from Karakamsha in

the

> > rasi

> > > > > > > chart,

> > > > > > > > > as you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > right, you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > could not have both Mesha and

> > > > Vrishabha

> > > > > > or

> > > > > > > Tula

> > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vrishchika

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd from the Karakamsha, is

that

> > not

> > > > so?

> > > > > > > > > Similarly

> > > > > > > > > > > if in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the 2nd from Karakamsha is to

be

> > seen,

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > > > > > could be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > navamshas.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I though you meant

so.Because in

> > > > > > > subsequent

> > > > > > > > > lines

> > > > > > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > see

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and Karakamsha being used

for

> > the

> > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > purpose.But if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there are other places where

> > swamsha

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagnamsha ,then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i can trust you if you can

> > point me

> > > > to

> > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > This

> > > > > > > > > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problem and in no way it

will

> > affect

> > > > > > us.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars can ofcourse

have

> > > > their

> > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > in a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > single

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashi or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bhava.Venus can have

navamsha

> > > > > > there,Mars

> > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there,Venus can have

Trimshamsha

> > > > > > > there,Mars

> > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there,they both can have

> > drekkana

> > > > > > there

> > > > > > > etc

> > > > > > > > > etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus sage is talking about

> > Bhrigu

> > > > and

> > > > > > > Angara

> > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > (as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > identified gramattically)

having

> > > > varga

> > > > > > > there

> > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > it is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > very

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > much

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you note the next line -

Sage

> > is

> > > > > > talking

> > > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > joining or aspecting the 2nd

> > from

> > > > > > > Karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From my experience -Mars +

> > Venus

> > > > > > creates

> > > > > > > > > certin

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced

> > this.Why

> > > > > > are

> > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > going

> > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > owned by just one of them

and

> > that

> > > > too

> > > > > > > > > without a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > planetary

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > link is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really worrying me.Shri

Rath has

> > > > > > > translated

> > > > > > > > > so,i

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > agree.But i

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath

> > will

> > > > > > > definitely

> > > > > > > > > > > correct

> > > > > > > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > benfit of jyotish community.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am surprised as to why

you say

> > > > > > so.That

> > > > > > > they

> > > > > > > > > > > cannot

> > > > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > together.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pardeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In

> > <%

40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > 40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > > > > > 40>,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have never said that I

do

> > not

> > > > > > think

> > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different where the

context

> > > > demands

> > > > > > so.

> > > > > > > At

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > time I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammar can be put to

rest to

> > in

> > > > the

> > > > > > > name of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > context,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sound

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course if you want

> > contextual

> > > > > > > translation

> > > > > > > > > > > only,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > certainly say that

> > the " Meshadi

> > > > > > raashige

> > > > > > > > > > > swaamshe "

> > > > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > always be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > translated as " Falling in

> > Mesha

> > > > > > > navamsha in

> > > > > > > > > > > Mesha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc. " .

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way " Tatra

> > Bhrigwonkaraka

> > > > > > > Varge " ,

> > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mention, does

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean varga of both Venus

and

> > mars,

> > > > > > but

> > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus OR

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > due to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the grammar only. varga

of two

> > > > > > planets

> > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > fall

> > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bhava/amsha/rasi whether

in

> > rasi

> > > > or

> > > > > > > > > Navamsha or

> > > > > > > > > > > any

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Grammatically,what you

are

> > > > saying

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > also

> > > > > > > > > > > true.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But Jyotish defintions

play

> > a

> > > > > > > preceding

> > > > > > > > > role

> > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > choosing

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammatical meaning.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example one meaning

of

> > > > > > > labhe ,Swamshe

> > > > > > > > > etc

> > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 11th

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But if we go by that we

will

> > > > > > > definitely

> > > > > > > > > > > translate

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamshe in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > meshadi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashige as ''in

> > > > Swamsha'',thereby

> > > > > > > > > translating

> > > > > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > full

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart.This as you too

> > agree,then

> > > > > > > cannot

> > > > > > > > > pass

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test,of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > subsequent shlokas.I

> > understand

> > > > > > gladly

> > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > too

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > agree that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha and karakamsha

are

> > the

> > > > > > same.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So the context decides

> > > > > > plural/singular

> > > > > > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > necessarily

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the ''E''

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as you have rightly

> > mentioned.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But in essence what i

want

> > to

> > > > say

> > > > > > > is ''E''

> > > > > > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > always

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean ''in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the'' as you have

> > > > > > > interpreted.Labheshe is

> > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example.Karake

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus it can very well

mean

> > > > Varga of

> > > > > > > > > Shukra and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars-

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > six vargas or one varga.

(Not

> > > > > > lordship)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka

Varge -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra -(There) In the

second

> > > > from

> > > > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga or Vargas of

Venus and

> > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now why should we need

two

> > > > > > > qualifiesrs for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > destination

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (1)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from karakamsha 2)in the

> > vargas

> > > > > > of?)-

> > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > we had

> > > > > > > > > > > > > another

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your interpretation is

> > > > right.That

> > > > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > > will

> > > > > > > > > > > > > answer

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > question -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who is in the vargas

of ?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly - Swamshad

dhane

> > > > Shukrar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Swamshad dhane is

already

> > > > pointing

> > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > destination-

> > > > > > > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > need

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > another ''in the''

vargas

> > of.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we

say

> > in

> > > > the

> > > > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > > > from

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > karakamsha if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mars and venus are

> > present,it

> > > > fits

> > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammatically.Moreover

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i had

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentioned rashi lordship

> > without

> > > > > > > planetary

> > > > > > > > > > > link

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (placement/amsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is too general.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In

> > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40> <%

> > > > 40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > 40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > > > 40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > > > > > > 40>,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@>

wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I may be wrong but

> > the " E " by

> > > > > > itself

> > > > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > point

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > word Shadvarga

indicating

> > 6

> > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > group

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (though it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more than one unit)

and

> > > > > > so " Varge " ,

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > singular is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " E " means " in " . I

would be

> > > > happy

> > > > > > if

> > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > example

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of " Varge "

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plural

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can be given.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not at all think

that

> > > > > > Vargaka

> > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > singular and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargake

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge is plural, at

all.

> > Both

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > > manner of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > using

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > indicates singular.

it is

> > no

> > > > use

> > > > > > > > > projecting

> > > > > > > > > > > > > what is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clearly

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saptami

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vibhakti and singular

as

> > > > being a

> > > > > > > plural

> > > > > > > > > > > word. If

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dvivachana it may

> > > > > > become " VargyoH "

> > > > > > > > > > > or " VargeSu "

> > > > > > > > > > > > > (for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bahuvachan)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge. Perhaps some

> > Sanskrit

> > > > > > > scholar on

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > list

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > comment

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on this.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, much as I would

like

> > it to

> > > > > > > resolve,

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > issue

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > remains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unresolved.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep

wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar

ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will give you a

> > relevant

> > > > > > > example to

> > > > > > > > > > > explain

> > > > > > > > > > > > > how

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VarGE

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > context of plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna Shad-VargaKE -

Is

> > > > > > pointing

> > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > all

> > > > > > > > > > > > > vargas -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plural.You

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > may

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > note

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that the grammatical

> > ending

> > > > is

> > > > > > > > > with ''E''

> > > > > > > > > > > > > showing

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plurals

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expressed with such

an

> > > > ending.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now from

> > Vrishamsha''Ka''

> > > > and

> > > > > > > Tulamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > example we

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > conclude

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VargaKA and VarGA

can be

> > > > used

> > > > > > for

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > purpose in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ekavachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > singular form and

> > VargaKE

> > > > and

> > > > > > > VarGE

> > > > > > > > > can be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bahuvachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plural form.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope this may

help us

> > in

> > > > > > > resolving

> > > > > > > > > our

> > > > > > > > > > > > > issue.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------

----

> > ----

> > > > ---

> > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in

this

> > > > incoming

> > > > > > > > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Checked by AVG Free

> > Edition.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 /

Virus

> > > > > > Database:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of

this

> > > > > > message

> > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > been

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------

----

> > ----

> > > > ---

> > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this

> > incoming

> > > > > > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Checked by AVG Free

Edition.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus

> > > > Database:

> > > > > > > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this

> > message

> > > > > > have

> > > > > > > been

> > > > > > > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------

----

> > ----

> > > > ---

> > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this

incoming

> > > > > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus

> > Database:

> > > > > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this

message

> > > > have

> > > > > > been

> > > > > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------

----

> > ----

> > > > ---

> > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

> > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus

Database:

> > > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message

> > have

> > > > been

> > > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---

----

> > ----

> > > > ---

> > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message

have

> > been

> > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------

----

> > ----

> > > > ---

> > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > > 269.10.2/890 -

> > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have

been

> > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > -----------

----

> > ----

> > > > ---

> > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > 269.10.2/890 -

> > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > ---------------

----

> > ----

> > > > --

> > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

269.10.2/890 -

> > > > Release

> > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

removed]

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > -------------------

----

> > --

> > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.4/896 -

> > Release

> > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > 7/11/2007 4:09 PM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Pls read

 

I personally do not feel venus and saturn in mutual amshas alone can

result in ...

 

, " vijayadas_pradeep "

<vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>

> The drishti mentioned in the concerned shloka is Graha drishti and

> not Rashi drishti is the view of shri PVR Narasimha Rao.

>

> I would be glad to know about your view.This answer will certainly

> help us.We are not all denying rashi drishti.Our concern is about

the

> shloka under discussion.

>

> It was not my interpretation.Moreover,i personally do not feel

venus

> and saturn in mutual amshas alone cannot effect in such a

result.The

> whole set of conditions would make one so.For the same

> reason,Dashadhyayi and Saravali is talking about a single

yoga,which

> i feel as correct.If you think they are seperate,it is fine.

>

> Respect

> Pradeep

>

>

> , Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > Why should Rashi drishtis be graded by Jaimini or Parashara? Any

> reason?

> > That " drishties are graded and not partial " , is the view of PVR?

> Does he

> > think that drishtis have t be graded for rashi drishti? I would

> doubt that.

> >

> > It is no use insisting that only graded graha drishtis must be

> > considered because one thinks that is right and throw out rashi

> drishtis

> > on the one hand and then go on and quote Jaimini when it suits an

> > argument on the other, or Parashara for that matter.

> >

> > By the way there is a difference between Sanmukha and Parshva

> drishti in

> > rashi drishti so you have classification within classification

that

> you

> > are seeking, right there, within the Rashi drishtis.

> >

> > I have already made my personal opinion clear and have no reason

to

> > revise the same. At the same time, I do not think I am of an

> elevated

> > stature, in the realm of astrology, enough to say that what other

> > learned had said must be wrong if it does not coincide with my

> views.

> >

> > Saravali does not state what is wrong, it is your interpretation

of

> the

> > shloka that is different from the " Kantimati " commentary

> on " Saravali "

> > that makes it so.

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> >

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > I feel the drishtis are graded and not partial drishtis.Poorna

> > > drishti is mentioned.

> > >

> > > Kindly help me with the shloka in BPHS or Jaimini sutra

pointing

> to

> > > grading o Rashi drishti.

> > >

> > > Shri PVR Rao has the same view.

> > >

> > > Now as it is graha drishti,and as you do not accept aspects as

a

> rule

> > > in general in varga chakras -how can this yoga happen is the

> > > crux.This it will solve all our issues,unless you want to

change

> your

> > > opinion on graha drishtis within Varga chakra.Thus as far as i

am

> > > concerned one answer from you will atleast enable both of us to

> reach

> > > a conclusion.If you change your opinion then it is your view

and i

> > > respect that.

> > >

> > > Now Trimishamsha shloka is ending(not chakra) bforeour shloka

and

> > > sage is talking about aspect between planets,Lagna belonging to

> > > Shukra and Lagnas amsha falling within Ghata rashi and shukra

and

> > > Saturn undergoing exchange in amsha.Do we need another example

to

> see

> > > how differen aspects are studied together.Where is Trimshamsha

> chakra

> > > here.If Saravali is wrong too,then i cannot say anything.

> > >

> > > Respect

> > > Pradeep

> > > -- In

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > The partial drishtis are graded in different strengths in the

> > > shloka

> > > > that you have quoted. I fail to see how the interpretation of

> this

> > > > shloka puts an end to aspects in Vargas ,and how does it

prove

> that

> > > > rashi drishti is not to be considered as claimed by you.

> > > >

> > > > Why should the shubha grahas have only graded drishti and not

> Rashi

> > > > drishti? There is nothing to support that premise in the

shlokas

> > > from

> > > > Brihat Jataka talking about aspects in Trimshamshas.

> > > >

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > >

> > > > > I thought you were aware of where that shloka is from.

> > > > > It is present in Rajayogadhyaya and came into picture

during

> my

> > > > > debate with shri PVR Rao.

> > > > > This shloka was debated as ,interpretation of this shloka

will

> > > bring

> > > > > to end all doubts regarding vargamshas.

> > > > > It is relevant to our discussion as you have mentioned

shubha

> > > grahas

> > > > > aspecting Lagnamsha,and lagnamsha i one among the

shadvargas

> of

> > > Lagna.

> > > > >

> > > > > Now you may kindly say,how this has to be interpreted ,as

> rashi

> > > > > drishti is ruled out in this case.

> > > > >

> > > > > I have no problems with Rashi drishti.But as you see in

this

> case

> > > > > grades are being mentioned.

> > > > >

> > > > > Regsrding the shlokas(navamsha/trimshamsha),i did not have

> time

> > > > > yesterday in the night.Thus i have posted you the

> shlokas,withfull

> > > > > explanation and refernces.Kindly see them.

> > > > >

> > > > > Respect

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Do you mean to say that Parashara says that in connection

> with

> > > > > > Meshaamshe etc.? I doubt that shloka exists in the

> karakamsha

> > > > > adhyaaya,

> > > > > > but of course, I could be wrong.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I asked you whether you accept the rashi drishtis that are

> > > > > mentioned by

> > > > > > Parashara and Jaimini or not? If Dashaaadhyaayi

interprets

> the

> > > > > shlokas

> > > > > > on navamsha and Trimshamshas from Brihat Jataka, why not

> give

> > > what

> > > > > it says?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You have given your interpretation of how amshakas should

be

> > > > > > interpreted, but failed to address the queries. May I

know

> why?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Purna drishte Purna Yogam Ardha Drishte ardhameva cha

> > > > > > > Pada drishte Padayogamiti gyeyam kramat phalam.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Is mentioned and hence the aspects are not about Rashi

> > > drishti.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Now as i have mentioned in the past,though the name is

> > > > > > > dashadhyayi,the author covers shlokas,from most of the

> > > chapters as

> > > > > > > and when he finds some interrelationship or link.This i

> > > consider

> > > > > as a

> > > > > > > real blessing.Now how amshakas are interpreted,has been

> > > > > > > demonstrated ,for numerous contexts,and thus forming a

> > > guideline

> > > > > for

> > > > > > > other shloka interpretations.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I will see the shlokas,and will write back.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Transits are to be seen no doubt from the rasis

> synonymous

> > > to

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > navamsha rasis, but when it is sphuta it is of the

> > > navamshesha

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > the rasis. There is a difference between the two.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I have already said I do not consider aspects in D-

> charts,

> > > > > unless

> > > > > > > > specifically mentioned in some yogas, and also that

> barring

> > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > charts, in other varga charts I look at rashi

aspects.

> That

> > > does

> > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > mean I should close my eyes to what is written in

other

> > > > > respected

> > > > > > > texts.

> > > > > > > > That only means I look at charts from a different

angle.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > There is nothing in the lagna shadvargake shloka to

> indicate

> > > > > graded

> > > > > > > > aspects and so it does not rule out rashi drishti at

> all.

> > > Ans

> > > > > since

> > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > have quoted both Parashara and Jaimini you should

know

> that

> > > > > rashi

> > > > > > > > drishtis are valid in Parashara too and exclusively

so

> in

> > > > > Jaimini.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Your translation and mine of the shlokas differ and

> that is

> > > why

> > > > > > > there is

> > > > > > > > no agreement. If you expect Dashaadhyaayi to give

> divisional

> > > > > charts

> > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > their interpretations, that is not possible as Varaha

> > > Mihira on

> > > > > > > whose

> > > > > > > > work it is only a commentary does not speak of it and

> it is

> > > > > > > commentary

> > > > > > > > on only 10 of the 18 adhayaayas of Brihat jataka. If

you

> > > read

> > > > > > > Brihat

> > > > > > > > jataka carefully, you will see reference o aspects in

> > > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > > there.

> > > > > > > > Since you have many times claimed superiority of

> > > Dashaadhyaayi

> > > > > over

> > > > > > > many

> > > > > > > > of the more ancient and respected classics, I find it

> > > strange

> > > > > as to

> > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > you do not want to accept what is said in the

original

> text

> > > on

> > > > > > > which

> > > > > > > > Dashaadhyaayi is only a commentary and that too on 10

> > > adhyaayas

> > > > > as

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > name suggests (that does not, of course, make it any

> less

> > > > > > > respectable).

> > > > > > > > There are many references to planets being placed in a

> > > navamsha,

> > > > > > > which

> > > > > > > > is not identical with the rasi whose name the navamsha

> > > enjoys,

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > results from them in the 21st adhyaaya. How do you

map

> back

> > > > > such a

> > > > > > > > navamsha to the rasi and what should be the logic?

You

> also

> > > see

> > > > > > > > reference to Guru occupying own Trimshamsha,

> irrespective of

> > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > in the

> > > > > > > > same adhayaaya. There are too many references like

this

> to

> > > > > question

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > theory that the amshas need always be mapped back to

> > > identical

> > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > rasi chart.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Could you tell why this reluctance to accept Varaha

> Mihira?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Meshamshe, Vrishamshe Transit results can be seen

from

> > > Mesha

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > Vrishabha rashis.Thus you are aware of what i am

> > > > > saying.Moreover

> > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > have seen paparkshe.we have seen meshadi rashige

> > > swamshe.we

> > > > > have

> > > > > > > seen

> > > > > > > > > that bhrigwonkaraka varge ,as per your understanding

> > > cannot

> > > > > > > satisfy

> > > > > > > > > both mars and venus.The very next shloka is talking

> about

> > > > > mars and

> > > > > > > > > venus yuti or aspecting.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Now we can forget all these as you are not williing

to

> > > accept

> > > > > > > > > rashi,riksha etc as valid reasoning.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > We have seen Lagna shadvargake shloka with aspectual

> > > > > > > grades,proving

> > > > > > > > > that they ae not rashi drishtis.Couple of days back

> and

> > > many

> > > > > > > times in

> > > > > > > > > the past,i have heard from you that you don't

support

> > > aspects

> > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > Vargas.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > If you still have the sam views,then to understand

> > > shadvargake

> > > > > > > > > shloka,we have to see planets aspecting lagna

in ''six

> > > > > charts''.As

> > > > > > > > > lagna can fall in any rashi,you have to accept

aspects

> > > fully

> > > > > in

> > > > > > > all

> > > > > > > > > Varga charts.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > This is relevant to our discussion as lagnamsha is

> also

> > > part

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > shadvargas of lagna.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > As you are aware ,the BPHS translator too has

> expressed

> > > his

> > > > > > > concern.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > How could I think shadvarga of lagna is shadvarga

of

> > > rashi?

> > > > > > > Lagna

> > > > > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > > > > point on the eastern horizon at the time of birth

> of a

> > > > > jataka.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > There is no dispute about what is lagnamsha and

> what is

> > > > > > > karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > > > all. At the same time when reference is to a graha

> > > falling

> > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > Lagnamsha

> > > > > > > > > > it refers to the navamsha rasi (or sector ruled

by

> one

> > > of

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > rasis

> > > > > > > > > of a

> > > > > > > > > > planet, barring Sun and Chandra if you like it

that

> > > way) in

> > > > > > > which

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > lagnamsha falls. Now that being so where is the

> shubha

> > > graha

> > > > > > > > > supposed to

> > > > > > > > > > fall in the shloka I quoted? Same with the Shubh

> graha

> > > in

> > > > > > > > > Karakamsha and

> > > > > > > > > > needing drishti of shubha graha on it. It is easy

> to say

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > these

> > > > > > > > > > need to be seen in rasi, but for lack of the

> reference

> > > to

> > > > > rasi,

> > > > > > > > > there,

> > > > > > > > > > there is no reason to assume that it does not

refer

> to

> > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > rasi.

> > > > > > > > > > The reference to grahas

> > > in " Meshaamshe " , " Vrishabhaamshe "

> > > > > etc

> > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > quite

> > > > > > > > > > clear, in BPHS.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Of course Yes,you are correct.Varga is found

for

> this

> > > > > bindu

> > > > > > > and in

> > > > > > > > > > > the case of planets their degree decides.The

rest

> you

> > > have

> > > > > > > stated

> > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > also as per definition.My point was made under

the

> > > > > impression

> > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > you have a view that,shadvarga of Lagna is

> shadvarga

> > > of a

> > > > > > > > > rashi.If so

> > > > > > > > > > > it is not.Shad varga is found for Lagna bindu.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > The full Rashi/Kshethra in which Lagna bindu

falls

> > > > > becomes its

> > > > > > > > > first

> > > > > > > > > > > Varga.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > The Translation is entiterely correct and no

one

> can

> > > > > > > > > contradict.This

> > > > > > > > > > > is similar to one planet aspecting shadvargas of

> > > lagna.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Lagnamsha is already covered in the shadvargas

of

> > > > > > > > > lagna.Karakamsha is

> > > > > > > > > > > similar too.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Now let us see it on a chart.Karkamasha is in

> > > > > Dhanu.Jupiter is

> > > > > > > > > placed

> > > > > > > > > > > in Mithuna Rashi.Shubha graha is aspecting

> Karakamsha

> > > > > Lagna

> > > > > > > > > > > (Rashi).Similarly Lagnamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > You are already aware of the rules for aspects.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I see your point of view. anyway even within

> > > shadvargas

> > > > > we

> > > > > > > look

> > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > degree of a planet falling within a certain

> span of

> > > > > degrees

> > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > particular bindu.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that rashi is a Varga and my question

> is if

> > > one

> > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > look at

> > > > > > > > > > > > aspects in one Varga why not in other Vargas?

I

> am

> > > sure

> > > > > you

> > > > > > > know

> > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > personally I use navamsha to find only the

> strength

> > > of

> > > > > > > grahas,

> > > > > > > > > but

> > > > > > > > > > > there

> > > > > > > > > > > > is no reason to rule out aspects in Navamshas

or

> > > other

> > > > > > > charts

> > > > > > > > > > > totally.

> > > > > > > > > > > > One of the raj yogas mentioned by Parashara

> talks of

> > > > > aspect

> > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > shubha

> > > > > > > > > > > > grahas on the karakamsha and Lagnamsha which

> should

> > > > > also be

> > > > > > > > > > > tenanted by

> > > > > > > > > > > > Shubha grahas, leaving no doubt as to where

the

> > > aspects

> > > > > are

> > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > seen.

> > > > > > > > > > > > And for the record the translation to that

> effect

> > > is by

> > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > eminent

> > > > > > > > > > > > astrologer who was Professor of astrology in

> Banaras

> > > > > Hindu

> > > > > > > > > > > University.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna as a bindu was mentioned for driving

> home

> > > the

> > > > > > > shadvarga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > calculations,if any members were having

> doubts.For

> > > > > > > shadvarga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > calculation of planets too we need the

bindu

> or

> > > > > degree of

> > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > > > > > > within a rashi, as you are aware.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > We have to look at Rashis.This is so

because

> Rashi

> > > > > (one 30

> > > > > > > > > degree

> > > > > > > > > > > > > sector ) is the first varga.As this Varga is

> > > > > synonymous

> > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > Bhava

> > > > > > > > > > > > > houses are analysed w.r to Rashis.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If lagna is a bindu a you propose, and

> nothing

> > > more,

> > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > how

> > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > indicate an entire rasi? Now if this is

> > > correct, and

> > > > > > > > > technically

> > > > > > > > > > > > > it is,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > then by your reckoning there is no need

to

> look

> > > at

> > > > > rasis

> > > > > > > > > too. Is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > what you mean to say?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If shadvargas are not related to the

portion

> > > > > falling in

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > lagna

> > > > > > > > > > > > > rasis,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > which holds the degree of lagna Madhya,

> then it

> > > > > appears

> > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > must

> > > > > > > > > > > ask

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > sages to redefine Vargas. I doubt they

need

> our

> > > > > advise.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There was a purpose.I just wanted to

> explain

> > > it

> > > > > to the

> > > > > > > > > > > members if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some of them are not sure on what

> shadvarga of

> > > > > lagna

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > how it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is calculated.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As you have said Vargas are divisions

of a

> > > > > rashi.But

> > > > > > > > > > > shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna is not the Vargas falling in

> Lagna.Here

> > > > > lagna is

> > > > > > > > > not a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashi,but a bindu.Vargas are found from

a

> > > > > degree.The

> > > > > > > > > degree

> > > > > > > > > > > of a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > planet or degree of lagna.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As you may know we do notneed six

charts

> to

> > > > > dtermine

> > > > > > > > > > > shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lagna.All we need is the degree of

lagna

> and

> > > the

> > > > > rashi

> > > > > > > > > rising.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us take an example.Lagna is at 11

> degrees

> > > in

> > > > > > > dhanu.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us find the shadvargas of Lagna

with

> th

> > > help

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > rising

> > > > > > > > > > > rashi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > degree.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1st Varga - The Rashi in which Lagna

> bindu is

> > > > > > > falling -

> > > > > > > > > Dhanu

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd Varga - The Hora in which Lagna

bindu

> is

> > > > > falling -

> > > > > > > As

> > > > > > > > > 11

> > > > > > > > > > > > > degrees

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > falls in the 1st half of dhanu - Surya

> Hora

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3rd Varga - The drekkana in which Lagna

> bindu

> > > is

> > > > > > > falling -

> > > > > > > > > As

> > > > > > > > > > > 11

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > degrees falls in the 2nd 1/3rd of

dhanu -

> > > > > Drekkana is

> > > > > > > > > Mesha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4th Varga - As 11 degrees falls in the

3rd

> > > > > > > > > saptamsha ,Lagna

> > > > > > > > > > > > > saptamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is Kumbha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similraly - Lagna navamsha is

Karka,Lagna

> > > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > dhanu.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus the purpose of whole exercise was

to

> say

> > > that

> > > > > > > when

> > > > > > > > > we say

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > shadvargas of Lagna or Mars,it does not

> mean

> > > the

> > > > > > > rashis

> > > > > > > > > owned

> > > > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna or Mars.But the Rashis on towhich

> they

> > > are

> > > > > > > > > placed,having

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hora,drekkana etc etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas of Mars in the 2nd Rashi from

> > > karakamsha

> > > > > too

> > > > > > > is no

> > > > > > > > > > > > > differet.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are many meanings,that is why

Rashi

> is

> > > > > called as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kshethra /Riksha /havana etc.But i

don't

> think

> > > > > sage

> > > > > > > will

> > > > > > > > > use

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > saword to represent something belonging

to

> > > same

> > > > > class.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example sage will not use ''sva''

to

> mean

> > > 2nd

> > > > > as

> > > > > > > well

> > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > 3rd.Then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we cannot interpret.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly Rashi and navamsha will not be

> > > > > represented

> > > > > > > > > using the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > word.Rashi/Kshethra/Riksha/Bhvana/Lagna

> etc

> > > are

> > > > > > > synonyms

> > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > ifthey

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are used for navamsha then what is the

> whole

> > > > > purpose

> > > > > > > > > behind

> > > > > > > > > > > > > defintion.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand sva was used for iems

> from

> > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > > classes.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This wasin mind while making such a

> > > statement.I

> > > > > will

> > > > > > > try

> > > > > > > > > my

> > > > > > > > > > > best

> > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > polish my style of writing.I accept my

> > > > > limitations in

> > > > > > > > > writing.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have not understood your question

or

> the

> > > > > intent

> > > > > > > behind

> > > > > > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas are divisions, within a rasi,

> ruled

> > > by

> > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > > grahas.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > So

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one wants t look at Vargas falling in

> lagna

> > > the

> > > > > shad

> > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > will

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the rasi equivalent occurring at lagna

> > > position

> > > > > in

> > > > > > > the 6

> > > > > > > > > > > > > divisional

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > charts of Rashi, Hora, Dreshkana,

> Navamsha,

> > > > > > > > > Dwaadashamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamsha. Or at least this is what

I

> have

> > > > > learnt.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sages did not use words in vain or

> context.

> > > I

> > > > > > > agree. But

> > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean they used the words to mean only

> one

> > > thing

> > > > > > > always.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I never said that the meaning can be

> > > changed to

> > > > > > > suit our

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > convenience and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would request you not to attribute

> such

> > > > > > > sentiments to

> > > > > > > > > me.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However I do say that word are used in

> > > different

> > > > > > > > > contexts to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > mean

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different things, especially in

Sanskrit

> > > texts

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > Jyotish. I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > have,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a few minutes back use of " Sva " with

> > > different

> > > > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > places by Varaha Mihira to you. I

hope

> you

> > > do

> > > > > not

> > > > > > > also

> > > > > > > > > > > attribute

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words that you attributed to me to the

> > > venerated

> > > > > > > Varaha

> > > > > > > > > > > Mihira.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar,.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pls tell me what you mean by

> shadvargas of

> > > > > > > lagna.How

> > > > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > find

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them.Do you go by ownership or

> placement

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (Rashi/navamsha/dwadshamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc).

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are shlokas in Varahamihiras

> text

> > > which

> > > > > > > > > > > says ,Okarkshe

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Purushamshakae.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which means in Ojarashi and Oja

amsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As per me sages will not use any

words

> > > out of

> > > > > > > > > context.If

> > > > > > > > > > > he

> > > > > > > > > > > > > wants

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > say amsha he will mention it.He

will

> not

> > > use

> > > > > > > Rashi to

> > > > > > > > > > > mean as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > amsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ojarkshe is Oja Rashi.Similarly

> Paparkshe

> > > is

> > > > > Papa

> > > > > > > > > Rashi.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you want to say as per our

> conveninece

> > > we

> > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > change

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of riksha/rashi/bhavana/bhavas as

> navamsha

> > > > > then i

> > > > > > > > > cannot

> > > > > > > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anything.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can only respect your views.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> 40>,

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will tell you why that happens.

> You

> > > begin

> > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > quoting

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then give a sutra from Jaimini as

> being

> > > > > said by

> > > > > > > > > > > Parashara.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Interpretation of sutras is not

the

> > > easiest

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > things,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > more

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jaimini's Upadesha sutras. That

the

> > > sutras

> > > > > use

> > > > > > > > > > > KaTaPaYaadi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > encryption

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > makes them even more difficult to

> > > > > interpret. I

> > > > > > > am

> > > > > > > > > sure

> > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > noticed

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this when Sreenadh interpreted the

> > > > > KaTaPaYaadi

> > > > > > > > > Varga in

> > > > > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrong

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fashion.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then there is your insistence to

let

> > > > > Sanskrit

> > > > > > > > > grammar

> > > > > > > > > > > give

> > > > > > > > > > > > > a go

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that can make interpretation of a

> > > shloka or

> > > > > > > sutra

> > > > > > > > > fit

> > > > > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposition.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any of the Shodasha Vargas of a

rasi

> > > can be

> > > > > > > > > referred to

> > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far as I know in astrology, when

one

> > > talks

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > Varga,

> > > > > > > > > > > without

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > qualifying

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it, or Amshas that generally

refers

> to

> > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dwadashaamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another reason that we can not

> agree, or

> > > > > seem to

> > > > > > > > > agree,

> > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reluctant to call a navamsha by

the

> > > > > nomenclature

> > > > > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > makes it difficult to convey what

I

> > > mean to

> > > > > say

> > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > English

> > > > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the language of the net and which

> both

> > > of us

> > > > > > > know.

> > > > > > > > > Now

> > > > > > > > > > > > > since you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > want to use the word Mesha

navamsha

> as

> > > > > Mesha is

> > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > rashi

> > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > logic it can not be a navamsha, it

> > > becomes

> > > > > > > > > difficult to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > convey

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understand by the texts.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will like to draw your

attention

> to

> > > the

> > > > > > > literal

> > > > > > > > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi. It means a heap and nothing

> more.

> > > In

> > > > > > > astrology

> > > > > > > > > > > since

> > > > > > > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > encompasses many stars that make

up

> a

> > > > > nakshatra

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > 1/12th

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > division of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the zodiac is called a Rasi. Or

at

> least

> > > > > this

> > > > > > > is my

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason of using the word rasi for

> the

> > > 1/12th

> > > > > > > > > division

> > > > > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > zodiac.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not agree that by Chandra in

> Guru

> > > > > Varga it

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > meant

> > > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandra is being seen. To me we

are

> > > talking

> > > > > > > about is

> > > > > > > > > > > whether

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandra is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > falling in the Varga of Guru in

> which

> > > ever

> > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > he

> > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > occupying.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Navamsha we see whether Chandra is

> > > occupying

> > > > > > > Pisces

> > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sagittarius

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > navamsha. I also do not agree that

> > > there are

> > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandra

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of any

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > planet for that matter. The 16

> Vargas

> > > that

> > > > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > > > > talks

> > > > > > > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that of a Rasi, beginning from

the

> Rashi

> > > > > itself.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the Vargas are not owned by

> different

> > > > > > > planets,

> > > > > > > > > pray

> > > > > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the sage

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tell us to see occupation of a

> friend,

> > > own

> > > > > etc.

> > > > > > > > > Varga to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > assess

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > strength of a planet in the Varga

> > > concerned?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have interacted with many

> astrologers

> > > of

> > > > > > > > > yesteryears

> > > > > > > > > > > (with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > respect to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > my age group) and have never

found

> them

> > > > > > > claiming the

> > > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only lagna and planets.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you insist that sage Parashara

> gave

> > > the

> > > > > SU.

> > > > > > > 52.-

> > > > > > > > > > > " Tatra

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bhrigwongaraka

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > varge paradarikaha " , perhaps you

> are

> > > > > referring

> > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > > > edition

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BPHS

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that I do not have. However I do

> have

> > > that

> > > > > in

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > umpteen

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > texts on Jaimini that I do have

in

> my

> > > > > library.

> > > > > > > And

> > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > way,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > scholars have interpreted that to

> mean

> > > 9th

> > > > > from

> > > > > > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the 2nd.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not agree that a graha can

> > > > > simultaneously

> > > > > > > > > occupy

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars, simultaneously,

as

> is

> > > being

> > > > > > > > > suggested

> > > > > > > > > > > > > whether in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in any of the Vargas. It could

only

> > > occupy

> > > > > one

> > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > other.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have seen you arguing in favor

of

> > > looking

> > > > > at

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grahas Venus and Mars. I would

like

> you

> > > to

> > > > > look

> > > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > > all

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > six

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > charts

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whose Vargas together are

referred

> as

> > > > > > > Shadvargas and

> > > > > > > > > > > try to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > find

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > out

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whether they do indeed contain

the 6

> > > Vargas

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > Venus

> > > > > > > > > > > and 6

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars. I am sure that you will

find

> them

> > > to

> > > > > > > contain

> > > > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > > 5

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > each of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the grahas. Once you confirm this

by

> > > > > looking at

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > 6

> > > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > self,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tell me how one can look at

> Shadvargas

> > > of

> > > > > Venus

> > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested to be the

interpretation

> of

> > > the

> > > > > sutra

> > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > you are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > referring to.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You may also be interested to

know

> that

> > > > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > > talks

> > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > AK

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > falling in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Varga of Chandra, Mars or

Venus

> also

> > > > > having

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > roving

> > > > > > > > > > > > > eye

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wives. So the combination of

Venus

> and

> > > Mars

> > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > giving

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the roving eye for other's wives,

> that

> > > you

> > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > advancing as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > standalone

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > principle, may not, necessarily,

be

> the

> > > way

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > sage

> > > > > > > > > > > looked

> > > > > > > > > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > their

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > interpretation.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Those were written by me.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am very dissappointed to see

> > > > > that ,inspite

> > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > repeating

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > numerus

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > times,you are unable to get

what

> i am

> > > > > saying.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not talking about rashis

> lorded

> > > by

> > > > > > > shukra or

> > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > here.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > am

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > talking about the shadvargas

> vargas of

> > > > > mars

> > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > shukra.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pls tell me what is the meaning

of

> > > > > shadvargas

> > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > simply

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lagna.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the rashi in which lagna

is

> > > > > placed.The

> > > > > > > > > > > navamshaka of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna,Trimshamshaka of Lagna

> etc.Can

> > > we

> > > > > see

> > > > > > > any

> > > > > > > > > > > lordship

> > > > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > say.Lagna does not own any

rashi.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly when we say vargas of

> > > Venus -It

> > > > > > > means

> > > > > > > > > Rashi

> > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > Venus,Hora,navamshaka,drekkana,trimshamshaka

> > > > > > > etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shadvarga is never the rashi

> owned by

> > > a

> > > > > > > > > planet.Then

> > > > > > > > > > > Lagna

> > > > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > never

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have shadvarga.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we

> say,Chandra in

> > > > > Guru

> > > > > > > > > Varga - We

> > > > > > > > > > > > > are not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > seeing

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the shadvarga of Guru,but that

of

> > > > > chandra.Is

> > > > > > > > > chandra

> > > > > > > > > > > > > placed in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guru

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rashi?Is Chandra navamshaka in

> Guru

> > > > > Rashi.Is

> > > > > > > > > Chandra

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamshaka in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guru Rashi etc is what we

> check.If so

> > > > > chandras

> > > > > > > > > vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > fall in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > guru

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashis or we say chandra is in

> > > guruvargas.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the same reason schoplars of

> > > > > yesteryears

> > > > > > > > > always

> > > > > > > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for our natal Lagna and Planets.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand you are

taking

> them

> > > as

> > > > > > > owned by

> > > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > planet.Every

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > shadvarga that derive is like

> > > that.You may

> > > > > > > check

> > > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > shri

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Narasimha,how he is deriving it

> for

> > > his

> > > > > > > software.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the same reason Bhrigu and

> Angara

> > > can

> > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > together

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rashi which is 2nd from

> > > Karakamsha.Sage

> > > > > > > clearly

> > > > > > > > > talks

> > > > > > > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vargas from both.Moreover the

next

> > > shloka

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > talking

> > > > > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus together or aspecting the

> 2nd

> > > from

> > > > > > > > > karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we go by

your

> > > > > > > explanation,we

> > > > > > > > > > > have to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > opt

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just one among shukra or Mars

> which

> > > is not

> > > > > > > > > > > proper.Their

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Joint

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > influence creates sexual drive.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I request you to kindly read

this

> with

> > > > > care.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rspect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In

>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> 40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > > 40>,

> > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The below remarks are not

from

> my

> > > mail

> > > > > at

> > > > > > > all.

> > > > > > > > > I do

> > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > know

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think I would write that. I

am

> sure

> > > you

> > > > > know

> > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > my

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > style

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of writing at all.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " >From my experience -Mars +

> Venus

> > > > > creates

> > > > > > > > > certin

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced

> this.Why

> > > are

> > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > going

> > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > owned by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just one of them and that too

> > > without a

> > > > > > > > > planetary

> > > > > > > > > > > link

> > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > worrying me.Shri Rath has

> translated

> > > > > so,i

> > > > > > > > > agree.But

> > > > > > > > > > > i

> > > > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath

> will

> > > > > definitely

> > > > > > > > > correct

> > > > > > > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > benfit

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of jyotish community. "

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As to why I said they could

not

> be

> > > > > having

> > > > > > > their

> > > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > together in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi or Bhava does not need

any

> > > deeper

> > > > > > > > > explanation.

> > > > > > > > > > > If

> > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > looking

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at the 2nd from Karakamsha in

> the

> > > rasi

> > > > > > > chart,

> > > > > > > > > as you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > right, you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > could not have both Mesha and

> > > Vrishabha

> > > > > or

> > > > > > > Tula

> > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vrishchika

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd from the Karakamsha, is

that

> > > not so?

> > > > > > > > > Similarly

> > > > > > > > > > > if in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the 2nd from Karakamsha is to

be

> > > seen,

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > > > > > could be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > navamshas.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I though you meant

so.Because

> in

> > > > > > > subsequent

> > > > > > > > > lines

> > > > > > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > see

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and Karakamsha being used

for

> the

> > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > purpose.But if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there are other places where

> > > swamsha

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagnamsha ,then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i can trust you if you can

> point

> > > me to

> > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > This

> > > > > > > > > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problem and in no way it

will

> > > affect

> > > > > us.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars can ofcourse

> have

> > > their

> > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > in a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > single

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashi or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bhava.Venus can have

navamsha

> > > > > there,Mars

> > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there,Venus can have

> Trimshamsha

> > > > > > > there,Mars

> > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there,they both can have

> drekkana

> > > > > there

> > > > > > > etc

> > > > > > > > > etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus sage is talking about

> Bhrigu

> > > and

> > > > > > > Angara

> > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > (as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > identified gramattically)

> having

> > > varga

> > > > > > > there

> > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > it is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > very

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > much

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you note the next line -

> Sage is

> > > > > talking

> > > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > joining or aspecting the

2nd

> from

> > > > > > > Karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From my experience -Mars +

> Venus

> > > > > creates

> > > > > > > > > certin

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced

> > > this.Why

> > > > > are

> > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > going

> > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > owned by just one of them

and

> > > that too

> > > > > > > > > without a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > planetary

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > link is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really worrying me.Shri

Rath

> has

> > > > > > > translated

> > > > > > > > > so,i

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > agree.But i

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri

Rath

> will

> > > > > > > definitely

> > > > > > > > > > > correct

> > > > > > > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > benfit of jyotish community.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am surprised as to why

you

> say

> > > > > so.That

> > > > > > > they

> > > > > > > > > > > cannot

> > > > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > together.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pardeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In

> > > <%

> 40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> 40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > > 40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > > > > 40>,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have never said that I

do

> not

> > > > > think

> > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different where the

context

> > > demands

> > > > > so.

> > > > > > > At

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > time I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammar can be put to

rest

> to

> > > in the

> > > > > > > name of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > context,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sound

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course if you want

> contextual

> > > > > > > translation

> > > > > > > > > > > only,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > certainly say that

> the " Meshadi

> > > > > raashige

> > > > > > > > > > > swaamshe "

> > > > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > always be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > translated as " Falling in

> Mesha

> > > > > > > navamsha in

> > > > > > > > > > > Mesha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc. " .

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way " Tatra

> > > Bhrigwonkaraka

> > > > > > > Varge " ,

> > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mention, does

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean varga of both Venus

and

> > > mars,

> > > > > but

> > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus OR

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > due to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the grammar only. varga

of

> two

> > > > > planets

> > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > fall

> > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bhava/amsha/rasi whether

in

> > > rasi or

> > > > > > > > > Navamsha or

> > > > > > > > > > > any

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Grammatically,what you

are

> > > saying

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > also

> > > > > > > > > > > true.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But Jyotish defintions

> play a

> > > > > > > preceding

> > > > > > > > > role

> > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > choosing

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammatical meaning.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example one meaning

of

> > > > > > > labhe ,Swamshe

> > > > > > > > > etc

> > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 11th

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But if we go by that we

> will

> > > > > > > definitely

> > > > > > > > > > > translate

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamshe in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > meshadi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashige as ''in

> > > Swamsha'',thereby

> > > > > > > > > translating

> > > > > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > full

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart.This as you too

> > > agree,then

> > > > > > > cannot

> > > > > > > > > pass

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test,of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > subsequent shlokas.I

> > > understand

> > > > > gladly

> > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > too

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > agree that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha and karakamsha

> are the

> > > > > same.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So the context decides

> > > > > plural/singular

> > > > > > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > necessarily

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the ''E''

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as you have rightly

> mentioned.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But in essence what i

> want to

> > > say

> > > > > > > is ''E''

> > > > > > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > always

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean ''in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the'' as you have

> > > > > > > interpreted.Labheshe is

> > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example.Karake

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus it can very well

mean

> > > Varga

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > Shukra and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars-

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > six vargas or one varga.

> (Not

> > > > > lordship)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka

> Varge -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra -(There) In the

> second

> > > from

> > > > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga or Vargas of

Venus

> and

> > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now why should we need

two

> > > > > > > qualifiesrs for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > destination

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (1)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from karakamsha 2)in the

> > > vargas

> > > > > of?)-

> > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > we had

> > > > > > > > > > > > > another

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your interpretation is

> > > right.That

> > > > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > > will

> > > > > > > > > > > > > answer

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > question -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who is in the vargas

of ?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly - Swamshad

dhane

> > > Shukrar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Swamshad dhane is

already

> > > > > pointing to

> > > > > > > > > > > destination-

> > > > > > > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > need

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > another ''in the''

vargas

> of.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we

> say in

> > > > > the 2nd

> > > > > > > > > from

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > karakamsha if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mars and venus are

> present,it

> > > > > fits in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammatically.Moreover

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i had

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentioned rashi lordship

> > > without

> > > > > > > planetary

> > > > > > > > > > > link

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (placement/amsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is too general.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In

> > > > >

> > > <%40> <%

> > > 40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> 40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > > 40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > > > > 40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > > > > > > 40>,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@>

wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I may be wrong but

> the " E "

> > > by

> > > > > itself

> > > > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > point

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > word Shadvarga

> indicating 6

> > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > group

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (though it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more than one unit)

and

> > > > > so " Varge " ,

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > singular is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " E " means " in " . I

would

> be

> > > > > happy if

> > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > example

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of " Varge "

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plural

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can be given.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not at all think

> that

> > > > > Vargaka

> > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > singular and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargake

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge is plural, at

all.

> > > Both

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > manner of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > using

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > indicates singular.

it

> is

> > > no use

> > > > > > > > > projecting

> > > > > > > > > > > > > what is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clearly

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saptami

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vibhakti and singular

as

> > > being a

> > > > > > > plural

> > > > > > > > > > > word. If

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dvivachana it may

> > > > > become " VargyoH "

> > > > > > > > > > > or " VargeSu "

> > > > > > > > > > > > > (for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bahuvachan)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge. Perhaps some

> Sanskrit

> > > > > > > scholar on

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > list

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > comment

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on this.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, much as I would

> like it

> > > to

> > > > > > > resolve,

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > issue

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > remains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unresolved.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep

wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar

ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will give you a

> relevant

> > > > > > > example to

> > > > > > > > > > > explain

> > > > > > > > > > > > > how

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VarGE

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > context of plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna Shad-VargaKE -

 

> Is

> > > > > pointing

> > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > all

> > > > > > > > > > > > > vargas -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plural.You

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > may

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > note

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that the grammatical

> > > ending is

> > > > > > > > > with ''E''

> > > > > > > > > > > > > showing

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plurals

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expressed with such

an

> > > ending.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now from

> Vrishamsha''Ka''

> > > and

> > > > > > > Tulamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > example we

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > conclude

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VargaKA and VarGA

can

> be

> > > used

> > > > > for

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > purpose in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ekavachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > singular form and

> VargaKE

> > > and

> > > > > > > VarGE

> > > > > > > > > can be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bahuvachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plural form.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope this may

help

> us in

> > > > > > > resolving

> > > > > > > > > our

> > > > > > > > > > > > > issue.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------

--

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in

this

> > > > > incoming

> > > > > > > > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Checked by AVG Free

> > > Edition.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 /

> Virus

> > > > > Database:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of

> this

> > > > > message

> > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > been

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------

--

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this

> > > incoming

> > > > > > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Checked by AVG Free

> Edition.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus

> > > Database:

> > > > > > > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this

> > > message

> > > > > have

> > > > > > > been

> > > > > > > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------

--

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this

> incoming

> > > > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus

> Database:

> > > > > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this

> message

> > > have

> > > > > been

> > > > > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------

--

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

> > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus

Database:

> > > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this

message

> have

> > > been

> > > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---

--

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

> message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message

have

> been

> > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------

--

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > 269.10.2/890 -

> > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have

been

> > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > -----------

--

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> 269.10.2/890 -

> > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > ---------------

--

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

269.10.2/890 -

> > > Release

> > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > -------------------

--

> ----

> > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.4/896 -

> Release

> > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > 7/11/2007 4:09 PM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeep,

 

I can not understand the relevance of the shloka to the topic under

discussion. The shloka does talk about graha drishti but then there is

more to the sphuta drishti than what the shloka conveys. But the shloka

does not certainly have t do anything with bhavas from karakamshas

having to be sen in rasi chart, by itself.

 

The shloka itself is clear enough to say that these are two different

yogas. Shukra and Shani can not simultaneously occupy each other's

navamsha and also occupy the navamshas of Shani. However everyone is

free to his own interpretation.

 

 

Chandrashekhar

vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>

> The drishti mentioned in the concerned shloka is Graha drishti and

> not Rashi drishti is the view of shri PVR Narasimha Rao.

>

> I would be glad to know about your view.This answer will certainly

> help us.We are not all denying rashi drishti.Our concern is about the

> shloka under discussion.

>

> It was not my interpretation.Moreover,i personally do not feel venus

> and saturn in mutual amshas alone cannot effect in such a result.The

> whole set of conditions would make one so.For the same

> reason,Dashadhyayi and Saravali is talking about a single yoga,which

> i feel as correct.If you think they are seperate,it is fine.

>

> Respect

> Pradeep

>

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > Why should Rashi drishtis be graded by Jaimini or Parashara? Any

> reason?

> > That " drishties are graded and not partial " , is the view of PVR?

> Does he

> > think that drishtis have t be graded for rashi drishti? I would

> doubt that.

> >

> > It is no use insisting that only graded graha drishtis must be

> > considered because one thinks that is right and throw out rashi

> drishtis

> > on the one hand and then go on and quote Jaimini when it suits an

> > argument on the other, or Parashara for that matter.

> >

> > By the way there is a difference between Sanmukha and Parshva

> drishti in

> > rashi drishti so you have classification within classification that

> you

> > are seeking, right there, within the Rashi drishtis.

> >

> > I have already made my personal opinion clear and have no reason to

> > revise the same. At the same time, I do not think I am of an

> elevated

> > stature, in the realm of astrology, enough to say that what other

> > learned had said must be wrong if it does not coincide with my

> views.

> >

> > Saravali does not state what is wrong, it is your interpretation of

> the

> > shloka that is different from the " Kantimati " commentary

> on " Saravali "

> > that makes it so.

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> >

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > I feel the drishtis are graded and not partial drishtis.Poorna

> > > drishti is mentioned.

> > >

> > > Kindly help me with the shloka in BPHS or Jaimini sutra pointing

> to

> > > grading o Rashi drishti.

> > >

> > > Shri PVR Rao has the same view.

> > >

> > > Now as it is graha drishti,and as you do not accept aspects as a

> rule

> > > in general in varga chakras -how can this yoga happen is the

> > > crux.This it will solve all our issues,unless you want to change

> your

> > > opinion on graha drishtis within Varga chakra.Thus as far as i am

> > > concerned one answer from you will atleast enable both of us to

> reach

> > > a conclusion.If you change your opinion then it is your view and i

> > > respect that.

> > >

> > > Now Trimishamsha shloka is ending(not chakra) bforeour shloka and

> > > sage is talking about aspect between planets,Lagna belonging to

> > > Shukra and Lagnas amsha falling within Ghata rashi and shukra and

> > > Saturn undergoing exchange in amsha.Do we need another example to

> see

> > > how differen aspects are studied together.Where is Trimshamsha

> chakra

> > > here.If Saravali is wrong too,then i cannot say anything.

> > >

> > > Respect

> > > Pradeep

> > > -- In

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > The partial drishtis are graded in different strengths in the

> > > shloka

> > > > that you have quoted. I fail to see how the interpretation of

> this

> > > > shloka puts an end to aspects in Vargas ,and how does it prove

> that

> > > > rashi drishti is not to be considered as claimed by you.

> > > >

> > > > Why should the shubha grahas have only graded drishti and not

> Rashi

> > > > drishti? There is nothing to support that premise in the shlokas

> > > from

> > > > Brihat Jataka talking about aspects in Trimshamshas.

> > > >

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > >

> > > > > I thought you were aware of where that shloka is from.

> > > > > It is present in Rajayogadhyaya and came into picture during

> my

> > > > > debate with shri PVR Rao.

> > > > > This shloka was debated as ,interpretation of this shloka will

> > > bring

> > > > > to end all doubts regarding vargamshas.

> > > > > It is relevant to our discussion as you have mentioned shubha

> > > grahas

> > > > > aspecting Lagnamsha,and lagnamsha i one among the shadvargas

> of

> > > Lagna.

> > > > >

> > > > > Now you may kindly say,how this has to be interpreted ,as

> rashi

> > > > > drishti is ruled out in this case.

> > > > >

> > > > > I have no problems with Rashi drishti.But as you see in this

> case

> > > > > grades are being mentioned.

> > > > >

> > > > > Regsrding the shlokas(navamsha/trimshamsha),i did not have

> time

> > > > > yesterday in the night.Thus i have posted you the

> shlokas,withfull

> > > > > explanation and refernces.Kindly see them.

> > > > >

> > > > > Respect

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Do you mean to say that Parashara says that in connection

> with

> > > > > > Meshaamshe etc.? I doubt that shloka exists in the

> karakamsha

> > > > > adhyaaya,

> > > > > > but of course, I could be wrong.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I asked you whether you accept the rashi drishtis that are

> > > > > mentioned by

> > > > > > Parashara and Jaimini or not? If Dashaaadhyaayi interprets

> the

> > > > > shlokas

> > > > > > on navamsha and Trimshamshas from Brihat Jataka, why not

> give

> > > what

> > > > > it says?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You have given your interpretation of how amshakas should be

> > > > > > interpreted, but failed to address the queries. May I know

> why?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Purna drishte Purna Yogam Ardha Drishte ardhameva cha

> > > > > > > Pada drishte Padayogamiti gyeyam kramat phalam.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Is mentioned and hence the aspects are not about Rashi

> > > drishti.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Now as i have mentioned in the past,though the name is

> > > > > > > dashadhyayi,the author covers shlokas,from most of the

> > > chapters as

> > > > > > > and when he finds some interrelationship or link.This i

> > > consider

> > > > > as a

> > > > > > > real blessing.Now how amshakas are interpreted,has been

> > > > > > > demonstrated ,for numerous contexts,and thus forming a

> > > guideline

> > > > > for

> > > > > > > other shloka interpretations.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I will see the shlokas,and will write back.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Transits are to be seen no doubt from the rasis

> synonymous

> > > to

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > navamsha rasis, but when it is sphuta it is of the

> > > navamshesha

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > the rasis. There is a difference between the two.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I have already said I do not consider aspects in D-

> charts,

> > > > > unless

> > > > > > > > specifically mentioned in some yogas, and also that

> barring

> > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > charts, in other varga charts I look at rashi aspects.

> That

> > > does

> > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > mean I should close my eyes to what is written in other

> > > > > respected

> > > > > > > texts.

> > > > > > > > That only means I look at charts from a different angle.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > There is nothing in the lagna shadvargake shloka to

> indicate

> > > > > graded

> > > > > > > > aspects and so it does not rule out rashi drishti at

> all.

> > > Ans

> > > > > since

> > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > have quoted both Parashara and Jaimini you should know

> that

> > > > > rashi

> > > > > > > > drishtis are valid in Parashara too and exclusively so

> in

> > > > > Jaimini.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Your translation and mine of the shlokas differ and

> that is

> > > why

> > > > > > > there is

> > > > > > > > no agreement. If you expect Dashaadhyaayi to give

> divisional

> > > > > charts

> > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > their interpretations, that is not possible as Varaha

> > > Mihira on

> > > > > > > whose

> > > > > > > > work it is only a commentary does not speak of it and

> it is

> > > > > > > commentary

> > > > > > > > on only 10 of the 18 adhayaayas of Brihat jataka. If you

> > > read

> > > > > > > Brihat

> > > > > > > > jataka carefully, you will see reference o aspects in

> > > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > > there.

> > > > > > > > Since you have many times claimed superiority of

> > > Dashaadhyaayi

> > > > > over

> > > > > > > many

> > > > > > > > of the more ancient and respected classics, I find it

> > > strange

> > > > > as to

> > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > you do not want to accept what is said in the original

> text

> > > on

> > > > > > > which

> > > > > > > > Dashaadhyaayi is only a commentary and that too on 10

> > > adhyaayas

> > > > > as

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > name suggests (that does not, of course, make it any

> less

> > > > > > > respectable).

> > > > > > > > There are many references to planets being placed in a

> > > navamsha,

> > > > > > > which

> > > > > > > > is not identical with the rasi whose name the navamsha

> > > enjoys,

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > results from them in the 21st adhyaaya. How do you map

> back

> > > > > such a

> > > > > > > > navamsha to the rasi and what should be the logic? You

> also

> > > see

> > > > > > > > reference to Guru occupying own Trimshamsha,

> irrespective of

> > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > in the

> > > > > > > > same adhayaaya. There are too many references like this

> to

> > > > > question

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > theory that the amshas need always be mapped back to

> > > identical

> > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > rasi chart.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Could you tell why this reluctance to accept Varaha

> Mihira?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Meshamshe, Vrishamshe Transit results can be seen from

> > > Mesha

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > Vrishabha rashis.Thus you are aware of what i am

> > > > > saying.Moreover

> > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > have seen paparkshe.we have seen meshadi rashige

> > > swamshe.we

> > > > > have

> > > > > > > seen

> > > > > > > > > that bhrigwonkaraka varge ,as per your understanding

> > > cannot

> > > > > > > satisfy

> > > > > > > > > both mars and venus.The very next shloka is talking

> about

> > > > > mars and

> > > > > > > > > venus yuti or aspecting.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Now we can forget all these as you are not williing to

> > > accept

> > > > > > > > > rashi,riksha etc as valid reasoning.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > We have seen Lagna shadvargake shloka with aspectual

> > > > > > > grades,proving

> > > > > > > > > that they ae not rashi drishtis.Couple of days back

> and

> > > many

> > > > > > > times in

> > > > > > > > > the past,i have heard from you that you don't support

> > > aspects

> > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > Vargas.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > If you still have the sam views,then to understand

> > > shadvargake

> > > > > > > > > shloka,we have to see planets aspecting lagna in ''six

> > > > > charts''.As

> > > > > > > > > lagna can fall in any rashi,you have to accept aspects

> > > fully

> > > > > in

> > > > > > > all

> > > > > > > > > Varga charts.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > This is relevant to our discussion as lagnamsha is

> also

> > > part

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > shadvargas of lagna.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > As you are aware ,the BPHS translator too has

> expressed

> > > his

> > > > > > > concern.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > How could I think shadvarga of lagna is shadvarga of

> > > rashi?

> > > > > > > Lagna

> > > > > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > > > > point on the eastern horizon at the time of birth

> of a

> > > > > jataka.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > There is no dispute about what is lagnamsha and

> what is

> > > > > > > karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > > > all. At the same time when reference is to a graha

> > > falling

> > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > Lagnamsha

> > > > > > > > > > it refers to the navamsha rasi (or sector ruled by

> one

> > > of

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > rasis

> > > > > > > > > of a

> > > > > > > > > > planet, barring Sun and Chandra if you like it that

> > > way) in

> > > > > > > which

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > lagnamsha falls. Now that being so where is the

> shubha

> > > graha

> > > > > > > > > supposed to

> > > > > > > > > > fall in the shloka I quoted? Same with the Shubh

> graha

> > > in

> > > > > > > > > Karakamsha and

> > > > > > > > > > needing drishti of shubha graha on it. It is easy

> to say

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > these

> > > > > > > > > > need to be seen in rasi, but for lack of the

> reference

> > > to

> > > > > rasi,

> > > > > > > > > there,

> > > > > > > > > > there is no reason to assume that it does not refer

> to

> > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > rasi.

> > > > > > > > > > The reference to grahas

> > > in " Meshaamshe " , " Vrishabhaamshe "

> > > > > etc

> > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > quite

> > > > > > > > > > clear, in BPHS.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Of course Yes,you are correct.Varga is found for

> this

> > > > > bindu

> > > > > > > and in

> > > > > > > > > > > the case of planets their degree decides.The rest

> you

> > > have

> > > > > > > stated

> > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > also as per definition.My point was made under the

> > > > > impression

> > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > you have a view that,shadvarga of Lagna is

> shadvarga

> > > of a

> > > > > > > > > rashi.If so

> > > > > > > > > > > it is not.Shad varga is found for Lagna bindu.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > The full Rashi/Kshethra in which Lagna bindu falls

> > > > > becomes its

> > > > > > > > > first

> > > > > > > > > > > Varga.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > The Translation is entiterely correct and no one

> can

> > > > > > > > > contradict.This

> > > > > > > > > > > is similar to one planet aspecting shadvargas of

> > > lagna.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Lagnamsha is already covered in the shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > lagna.Karakamsha is

> > > > > > > > > > > similar too.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Now let us see it on a chart.Karkamasha is in

> > > > > Dhanu.Jupiter is

> > > > > > > > > placed

> > > > > > > > > > > in Mithuna Rashi.Shubha graha is aspecting

> Karakamsha

> > > > > Lagna

> > > > > > > > > > > (Rashi).Similarly Lagnamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > You are already aware of the rules for aspects.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I see your point of view. anyway even within

> > > shadvargas

> > > > > we

> > > > > > > look

> > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > degree of a planet falling within a certain

> span of

> > > > > degrees

> > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > particular bindu.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that rashi is a Varga and my question

> is if

> > > one

> > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > look at

> > > > > > > > > > > > aspects in one Varga why not in other Vargas? I

> am

> > > sure

> > > > > you

> > > > > > > know

> > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > personally I use navamsha to find only the

> strength

> > > of

> > > > > > > grahas,

> > > > > > > > > but

> > > > > > > > > > > there

> > > > > > > > > > > > is no reason to rule out aspects in Navamshas or

> > > other

> > > > > > > charts

> > > > > > > > > > > totally.

> > > > > > > > > > > > One of the raj yogas mentioned by Parashara

> talks of

> > > > > aspect

> > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > shubha

> > > > > > > > > > > > grahas on the karakamsha and Lagnamsha which

> should

> > > > > also be

> > > > > > > > > > > tenanted by

> > > > > > > > > > > > Shubha grahas, leaving no doubt as to where the

> > > aspects

> > > > > are

> > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > seen.

> > > > > > > > > > > > And for the record the translation to that

> effect

> > > is by

> > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > eminent

> > > > > > > > > > > > astrologer who was Professor of astrology in

> Banaras

> > > > > Hindu

> > > > > > > > > > > University.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna as a bindu was mentioned for driving

> home

> > > the

> > > > > > > shadvarga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > calculations,if any members were having

> doubts.For

> > > > > > > shadvarga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > calculation of planets too we need the bindu

> or

> > > > > degree of

> > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > > > > > > within a rashi, as you are aware.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > We have to look at Rashis.This is so because

> Rashi

> > > > > (one 30

> > > > > > > > > degree

> > > > > > > > > > > > > sector ) is the first varga.As this Varga is

> > > > > synonymous

> > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > Bhava

> > > > > > > > > > > > > houses are analysed w.r to Rashis.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If lagna is a bindu a you propose, and

> nothing

> > > more,

> > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > how

> > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > indicate an entire rasi? Now if this is

> > > correct, and

> > > > > > > > > technically

> > > > > > > > > > > > > it is,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > then by your reckoning there is no need to

> look

> > > at

> > > > > rasis

> > > > > > > > > too. Is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > what you mean to say?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If shadvargas are not related to the portion

> > > > > falling in

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > lagna

> > > > > > > > > > > > > rasis,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > which holds the degree of lagna Madhya,

> then it

> > > > > appears

> > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > must

> > > > > > > > > > > ask

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > sages to redefine Vargas. I doubt they need

> our

> > > > > advise.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There was a purpose.I just wanted to

> explain

> > > it

> > > > > to the

> > > > > > > > > > > members if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some of them are not sure on what

> shadvarga of

> > > > > lagna

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > how it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is calculated.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As you have said Vargas are divisions of a

> > > > > rashi.But

> > > > > > > > > > > shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna is not the Vargas falling in

> Lagna.Here

> > > > > lagna is

> > > > > > > > > not a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashi,but a bindu.Vargas are found from a

> > > > > degree.The

> > > > > > > > > degree

> > > > > > > > > > > of a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > planet or degree of lagna.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As you may know we do notneed six charts

> to

> > > > > dtermine

> > > > > > > > > > > shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lagna.All we need is the degree of lagna

> and

> > > the

> > > > > rashi

> > > > > > > > > rising.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us take an example.Lagna is at 11

> degrees

> > > in

> > > > > > > dhanu.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us find the shadvargas of Lagna with

> th

> > > help

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > rising

> > > > > > > > > > > rashi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > degree.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1st Varga - The Rashi in which Lagna

> bindu is

> > > > > > > falling -

> > > > > > > > > Dhanu

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd Varga - The Hora in which Lagna bindu

> is

> > > > > falling -

> > > > > > > As

> > > > > > > > > 11

> > > > > > > > > > > > > degrees

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > falls in the 1st half of dhanu - Surya

> Hora

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3rd Varga - The drekkana in which Lagna

> bindu

> > > is

> > > > > > > falling -

> > > > > > > > > As

> > > > > > > > > > > 11

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > degrees falls in the 2nd 1/3rd of dhanu -

> > > > > Drekkana is

> > > > > > > > > Mesha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4th Varga - As 11 degrees falls in the 3rd

> > > > > > > > > saptamsha ,Lagna

> > > > > > > > > > > > > saptamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is Kumbha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similraly - Lagna navamsha is Karka,Lagna

> > > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > dhanu.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus the purpose of whole exercise was to

> say

> > > that

> > > > > > > when

> > > > > > > > > we say

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > shadvargas of Lagna or Mars,it does not

> mean

> > > the

> > > > > > > rashis

> > > > > > > > > owned

> > > > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna or Mars.But the Rashis on towhich

> they

> > > are

> > > > > > > > > placed,having

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hora,drekkana etc etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas of Mars in the 2nd Rashi from

> > > karakamsha

> > > > > too

> > > > > > > is no

> > > > > > > > > > > > > differet.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are many meanings,that is why Rashi

> is

> > > > > called as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kshethra /Riksha /havana etc.But i don't

> think

> > > > > sage

> > > > > > > will

> > > > > > > > > use

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > saword to represent something belonging to

> > > same

> > > > > class.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example sage will not use ''sva'' to

> mean

> > > 2nd

> > > > > as

> > > > > > > well

> > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > 3rd.Then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we cannot interpret.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly Rashi and navamsha will not be

> > > > > represented

> > > > > > > > > using the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > word.Rashi/Kshethra/Riksha/Bhvana/Lagna

> etc

> > > are

> > > > > > > synonyms

> > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > ifthey

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are used for navamsha then what is the

> whole

> > > > > purpose

> > > > > > > > > behind

> > > > > > > > > > > > > defintion.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand sva was used for iems

> from

> > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > > classes.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This wasin mind while making such a

> > > statement.I

> > > > > will

> > > > > > > try

> > > > > > > > > my

> > > > > > > > > > > best

> > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > polish my style of writing.I accept my

> > > > > limitations in

> > > > > > > > > writing.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have not understood your question or

> the

> > > > > intent

> > > > > > > behind

> > > > > > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas are divisions, within a rasi,

> ruled

> > > by

> > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > > grahas.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > So

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one wants t look at Vargas falling in

> lagna

> > > the

> > > > > shad

> > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > will

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the rasi equivalent occurring at lagna

> > > position

> > > > > in

> > > > > > > the 6

> > > > > > > > > > > > > divisional

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > charts of Rashi, Hora, Dreshkana,

> Navamsha,

> > > > > > > > > Dwaadashamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamsha. Or at least this is what I

> have

> > > > > learnt.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sages did not use words in vain or

> context.

> > > I

> > > > > > > agree. But

> > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean they used the words to mean only

> one

> > > thing

> > > > > > > always.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I never said that the meaning can be

> > > changed to

> > > > > > > suit our

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > convenience and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would request you not to attribute

> such

> > > > > > > sentiments to

> > > > > > > > > me.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However I do say that word are used in

> > > different

> > > > > > > > > contexts to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > mean

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different things, especially in Sanskrit

> > > texts

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > Jyotish. I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > have,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a few minutes back use of " Sva " with

> > > different

> > > > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > places by Varaha Mihira to you. I hope

> you

> > > do

> > > > > not

> > > > > > > also

> > > > > > > > > > > attribute

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words that you attributed to me to the

> > > venerated

> > > > > > > Varaha

> > > > > > > > > > > Mihira.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar,.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pls tell me what you mean by

> shadvargas of

> > > > > > > lagna.How

> > > > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > find

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them.Do you go by ownership or

> placement

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (Rashi/navamsha/dwadshamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc).

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are shlokas in Varahamihiras

> text

> > > which

> > > > > > > > > > > says ,Okarkshe

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Purushamshakae.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which means in Ojarashi and Oja amsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As per me sages will not use any words

> > > out of

> > > > > > > > > context.If

> > > > > > > > > > > he

> > > > > > > > > > > > > wants

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > say amsha he will mention it.He will

> not

> > > use

> > > > > > > Rashi to

> > > > > > > > > > > mean as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > amsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ojarkshe is Oja Rashi.Similarly

> Paparkshe

> > > is

> > > > > Papa

> > > > > > > > > Rashi.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you want to say as per our

> conveninece

> > > we

> > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > change

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of riksha/rashi/bhavana/bhavas as

> navamsha

> > > > > then i

> > > > > > > > > cannot

> > > > > > > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anything.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can only respect your views.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> 40>,

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will tell you why that happens.

> You

> > > begin

> > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > quoting

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then give a sutra from Jaimini as

> being

> > > > > said by

> > > > > > > > > > > Parashara.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Interpretation of sutras is not the

> > > easiest

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > things,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > more

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jaimini's Upadesha sutras. That the

> > > sutras

> > > > > use

> > > > > > > > > > > KaTaPaYaadi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > encryption

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > makes them even more difficult to

> > > > > interpret. I

> > > > > > > am

> > > > > > > > > sure

> > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > noticed

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this when Sreenadh interpreted the

> > > > > KaTaPaYaadi

> > > > > > > > > Varga in

> > > > > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrong

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fashion.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then there is your insistence to let

> > > > > Sanskrit

> > > > > > > > > grammar

> > > > > > > > > > > give

> > > > > > > > > > > > > a go

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that can make interpretation of a

> > > shloka or

> > > > > > > sutra

> > > > > > > > > fit

> > > > > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposition.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any of the Shodasha Vargas of a rasi

> > > can be

> > > > > > > > > referred to

> > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far as I know in astrology, when one

> > > talks

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > Varga,

> > > > > > > > > > > without

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > qualifying

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it, or Amshas that generally refers

> to

> > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dwadashaamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another reason that we can not

> agree, or

> > > > > seem to

> > > > > > > > > agree,

> > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reluctant to call a navamsha by the

> > > > > nomenclature

> > > > > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > makes it difficult to convey what I

> > > mean to

> > > > > say

> > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > English

> > > > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the language of the net and which

> both

> > > of us

> > > > > > > know.

> > > > > > > > > Now

> > > > > > > > > > > > > since you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > want to use the word Mesha navamsha

> as

> > > > > Mesha is

> > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > rashi

> > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > logic it can not be a navamsha, it

> > > becomes

> > > > > > > > > difficult to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > convey

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understand by the texts.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will like to draw your attention

> to

> > > the

> > > > > > > literal

> > > > > > > > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi. It means a heap and nothing

> more.

> > > In

> > > > > > > astrology

> > > > > > > > > > > since

> > > > > > > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > encompasses many stars that make up

> a

> > > > > nakshatra

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > 1/12th

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > division of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the zodiac is called a Rasi. Or at

> least

> > > > > this

> > > > > > > is my

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason of using the word rasi for

> the

> > > 1/12th

> > > > > > > > > division

> > > > > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > zodiac.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not agree that by Chandra in

> Guru

> > > > > Varga it

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > meant

> > > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandra is being seen. To me we are

> > > talking

> > > > > > > about is

> > > > > > > > > > > whether

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandra is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > falling in the Varga of Guru in

> which

> > > ever

> > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > he

> > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > occupying.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Navamsha we see whether Chandra is

> > > occupying

> > > > > > > Pisces

> > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sagittarius

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > navamsha. I also do not agree that

> > > there are

> > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandra

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of any

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > planet for that matter. The 16

> Vargas

> > > that

> > > > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > > > > talks

> > > > > > > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that of a Rasi, beginning from the

> Rashi

> > > > > itself.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the Vargas are not owned by

> different

> > > > > > > planets,

> > > > > > > > > pray

> > > > > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the sage

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tell us to see occupation of a

> friend,

> > > own

> > > > > etc.

> > > > > > > > > Varga to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > assess

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > strength of a planet in the Varga

> > > concerned?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have interacted with many

> astrologers

> > > of

> > > > > > > > > yesteryears

> > > > > > > > > > > (with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > respect to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > my age group) and have never found

> them

> > > > > > > claiming the

> > > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only lagna and planets.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you insist that sage Parashara

> gave

> > > the

> > > > > SU.

> > > > > > > 52.-

> > > > > > > > > > > " Tatra

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bhrigwongaraka

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > varge paradarikaha " , perhaps you

> are

> > > > > referring

> > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > > > edition

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BPHS

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that I do not have. However I do

> have

> > > that

> > > > > in

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > umpteen

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > texts on Jaimini that I do have in

> my

> > > > > library.

> > > > > > > And

> > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > way,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > scholars have interpreted that to

> mean

> > > 9th

> > > > > from

> > > > > > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the 2nd.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not agree that a graha can

> > > > > simultaneously

> > > > > > > > > occupy

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars, simultaneously, as

> is

> > > being

> > > > > > > > > suggested

> > > > > > > > > > > > > whether in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in any of the Vargas. It could only

> > > occupy

> > > > > one

> > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > other.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have seen you arguing in favor of

> > > looking

> > > > > at

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grahas Venus and Mars. I would like

> you

> > > to

> > > > > look

> > > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > > all

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > six

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > charts

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whose Vargas together are referred

> as

> > > > > > > Shadvargas and

> > > > > > > > > > > try to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > find

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > out

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whether they do indeed contain the 6

> > > Vargas

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > Venus

> > > > > > > > > > > and 6

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars. I am sure that you will find

> them

> > > to

> > > > > > > contain

> > > > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > > 5

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > each of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the grahas. Once you confirm this by

> > > > > looking at

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > 6

> > > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > self,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tell me how one can look at

> Shadvargas

> > > of

> > > > > Venus

> > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested to be the interpretation

> of

> > > the

> > > > > sutra

> > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > you are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > referring to.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You may also be interested to know

> that

> > > > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > > talks

> > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > AK

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > falling in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Varga of Chandra, Mars or Venus

> also

> > > > > having

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > roving

> > > > > > > > > > > > > eye

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wives. So the combination of Venus

> and

> > > Mars

> > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > giving

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the roving eye for other's wives,

> that

> > > you

> > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > advancing as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > standalone

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > principle, may not, necessarily, be

> the

> > > way

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > sage

> > > > > > > > > > > looked

> > > > > > > > > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > their

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > interpretation.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Those were written by me.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am very dissappointed to see

> > > > > that ,inspite

> > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > repeating

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > numerus

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > times,you are unable to get what

> i am

> > > > > saying.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not talking about rashis

> lorded

> > > by

> > > > > > > shukra or

> > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > here.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > am

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > talking about the shadvargas

> vargas of

> > > > > mars

> > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > shukra.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pls tell me what is the meaning of

> > > > > shadvargas

> > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > simply

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lagna.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the rashi in which lagna is

> > > > > placed.The

> > > > > > > > > > > navamshaka of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna,Trimshamshaka of Lagna

> etc.Can

> > > we

> > > > > see

> > > > > > > any

> > > > > > > > > > > lordship

> > > > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > say.Lagna does not own any rashi.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly when we say vargas of

> > > Venus -It

> > > > > > > means

> > > > > > > > > Rashi

> > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > Venus,Hora,navamshaka,drekkana,trimshamshaka

> > > > > > > etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shadvarga is never the rashi

> owned by

> > > a

> > > > > > > > > planet.Then

> > > > > > > > > > > Lagna

> > > > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > never

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have shadvarga.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we

> say,Chandra in

> > > > > Guru

> > > > > > > > > Varga - We

> > > > > > > > > > > > > are not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > seeing

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the shadvarga of Guru,but that of

> > > > > chandra.Is

> > > > > > > > > chandra

> > > > > > > > > > > > > placed in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guru

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rashi?Is Chandra navamshaka in

> Guru

> > > > > Rashi.Is

> > > > > > > > > Chandra

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamshaka in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guru Rashi etc is what we

> check.If so

> > > > > chandras

> > > > > > > > > vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > fall in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > guru

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashis or we say chandra is in

> > > guruvargas.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the same reason schoplars of

> > > > > yesteryears

> > > > > > > > > always

> > > > > > > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for our natal Lagna and Planets.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand you are taking

> them

> > > as

> > > > > > > owned by

> > > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > planet.Every

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > shadvarga that derive is like

> > > that.You may

> > > > > > > check

> > > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > shri

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Narasimha,how he is deriving it

> for

> > > his

> > > > > > > software.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the same reason Bhrigu and

> Angara

> > > can

> > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > together

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rashi which is 2nd from

> > > Karakamsha.Sage

> > > > > > > clearly

> > > > > > > > > talks

> > > > > > > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vargas from both.Moreover the next

> > > shloka

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > talking

> > > > > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus together or aspecting the

> 2nd

> > > from

> > > > > > > > > karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we go by your

> > > > > > > explanation,we

> > > > > > > > > > > have to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > opt

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just one among shukra or Mars

> which

> > > is not

> > > > > > > > > > > proper.Their

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Joint

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > influence creates sexual drive.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I request you to kindly read this

> with

> > > > > care.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rspect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> 40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > > 40>,

> > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The below remarks are not from

> my

> > > mail

> > > > > at

> > > > > > > all.

> > > > > > > > > I do

> > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > know

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think I would write that. I am

> sure

> > > you

> > > > > know

> > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > my

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > style

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of writing at all.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " >From my experience -Mars +

> Venus

> > > > > creates

> > > > > > > > > certin

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced

> this.Why

> > > are

> > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > going

> > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > owned by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just one of them and that too

> > > without a

> > > > > > > > > planetary

> > > > > > > > > > > link

> > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > worrying me.Shri Rath has

> translated

> > > > > so,i

> > > > > > > > > agree.But

> > > > > > > > > > > i

> > > > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath

> will

> > > > > definitely

> > > > > > > > > correct

> > > > > > > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > benfit

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of jyotish community. "

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As to why I said they could not

> be

> > > > > having

> > > > > > > their

> > > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > together in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi or Bhava does not need any

> > > deeper

> > > > > > > > > explanation.

> > > > > > > > > > > If

> > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > looking

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at the 2nd from Karakamsha in

> the

> > > rasi

> > > > > > > chart,

> > > > > > > > > as you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > right, you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > could not have both Mesha and

> > > Vrishabha

> > > > > or

> > > > > > > Tula

> > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vrishchika

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd from the Karakamsha, is that

> > > not so?

> > > > > > > > > Similarly

> > > > > > > > > > > if in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the 2nd from Karakamsha is to be

> > > seen,

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > > > > > could be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > navamshas.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I though you meant so.Because

> in

> > > > > > > subsequent

> > > > > > > > > lines

> > > > > > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > see

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and Karakamsha being used for

> the

> > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > purpose.But if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there are other places where

> > > swamsha

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagnamsha ,then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i can trust you if you can

> point

> > > me to

> > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > This

> > > > > > > > > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problem and in no way it will

> > > affect

> > > > > us.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars can ofcourse

> have

> > > their

> > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > in a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > single

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashi or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bhava.Venus can have navamsha

> > > > > there,Mars

> > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there,Venus can have

> Trimshamsha

> > > > > > > there,Mars

> > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there,they both can have

> drekkana

> > > > > there

> > > > > > > etc

> > > > > > > > > etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus sage is talking about

> Bhrigu

> > > and

> > > > > > > Angara

> > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > (as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > identified gramattically)

> having

> > > varga

> > > > > > > there

> > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > it is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > very

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > much

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you note the next line -

> Sage is

> > > > > talking

> > > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > joining or aspecting the 2nd

> from

> > > > > > > Karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From my experience -Mars +

> Venus

> > > > > creates

> > > > > > > > > certin

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced

> > > this.Why

> > > > > are

> > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > going

> > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > owned by just one of them and

> > > that too

> > > > > > > > > without a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > planetary

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > link is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really worrying me.Shri Rath

> has

> > > > > > > translated

> > > > > > > > > so,i

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > agree.But i

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath

> will

> > > > > > > definitely

> > > > > > > > > > > correct

> > > > > > > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > benfit of jyotish community.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am surprised as to why you

> say

> > > > > so.That

> > > > > > > they

> > > > > > > > > > > cannot

> > > > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > together.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pardeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In

> > >

> <%40> <%

> 40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> 40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > > 40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > > > > 40>,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have never said that I do

> not

> > > > > think

> > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different where the context

> > > demands

> > > > > so.

> > > > > > > At

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > time I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammar can be put to rest

> to

> > > in the

> > > > > > > name of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > context,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sound

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course if you want

> contextual

> > > > > > > translation

> > > > > > > > > > > only,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > certainly say that

> the " Meshadi

> > > > > raashige

> > > > > > > > > > > swaamshe "

> > > > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > always be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > translated as " Falling in

> Mesha

> > > > > > > navamsha in

> > > > > > > > > > > Mesha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc. " .

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way " Tatra

> > > Bhrigwonkaraka

> > > > > > > Varge " ,

> > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mention, does

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean varga of both Venus and

> > > mars,

> > > > > but

> > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus OR

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > due to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the grammar only. varga of

> two

> > > > > planets

> > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > fall

> > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bhava/amsha/rasi whether in

> > > rasi or

> > > > > > > > > Navamsha or

> > > > > > > > > > > any

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Grammatically,what you are

> > > saying

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > also

> > > > > > > > > > > true.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But Jyotish defintions

> play a

> > > > > > > preceding

> > > > > > > > > role

> > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > choosing

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammatical meaning.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example one meaning of

> > > > > > > labhe ,Swamshe

> > > > > > > > > etc

> > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 11th

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But if we go by that we

> will

> > > > > > > definitely

> > > > > > > > > > > translate

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamshe in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > meshadi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashige as ''in

> > > Swamsha'',thereby

> > > > > > > > > translating

> > > > > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > full

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart.This as you too

> > > agree,then

> > > > > > > cannot

> > > > > > > > > pass

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test,of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > subsequent shlokas.I

> > > understand

> > > > > gladly

> > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > too

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > agree that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha and karakamsha

> are the

> > > > > same.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So the context decides

> > > > > plural/singular

> > > > > > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > necessarily

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the ''E''

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as you have rightly

> mentioned.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But in essence what i

> want to

> > > say

> > > > > > > is ''E''

> > > > > > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > always

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean ''in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the'' as you have

> > > > > > > interpreted.Labheshe is

> > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example.Karake

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus it can very well mean

> > > Varga

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > Shukra and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars-

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > six vargas or one varga.

> (Not

> > > > > lordship)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka

> Varge -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra -(There) In the

> second

> > > from

> > > > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga or Vargas of Venus

> and

> > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now why should we need two

> > > > > > > qualifiesrs for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > destination

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (1)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from karakamsha 2)in the

> > > vargas

> > > > > of?)-

> > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > we had

> > > > > > > > > > > > > another

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your interpretation is

> > > right.That

> > > > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > > will

> > > > > > > > > > > > > answer

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > question -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who is in the vargas of ?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly - Swamshad dhane

> > > Shukrar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Swamshad dhane is already

> > > > > pointing to

> > > > > > > > > > > destination-

> > > > > > > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > need

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > another ''in the'' vargas

> of.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we

> say in

> > > > > the 2nd

> > > > > > > > > from

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > karakamsha if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mars and venus are

> present,it

> > > > > fits in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammatically.Moreover

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i had

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentioned rashi lordship

> > > without

> > > > > > > planetary

> > > > > > > > > > > link

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (placement/amsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is too general.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In

> > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40> <%

> > > 40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> 40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > > 40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > > > > 40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > > > > > > 40>,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I may be wrong but

> the " E "

> > > by

> > > > > itself

> > > > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > point

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > word Shadvarga

> indicating 6

> > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > group

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (though it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more than one unit) and

> > > > > so " Varge " ,

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > singular is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " E " means " in " . I would

> be

> > > > > happy if

> > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > example

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of " Varge "

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plural

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can be given.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not at all think

> that

> > > > > Vargaka

> > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > singular and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargake

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge is plural, at all.

> > > Both

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > manner of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > using

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > indicates singular. it

> is

> > > no use

> > > > > > > > > projecting

> > > > > > > > > > > > > what is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clearly

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saptami

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vibhakti and singular as

> > > being a

> > > > > > > plural

> > > > > > > > > > > word. If

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dvivachana it may

> > > > > become " VargyoH "

> > > > > > > > > > > or " VargeSu "

> > > > > > > > > > > > > (for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bahuvachan)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge. Perhaps some

> Sanskrit

> > > > > > > scholar on

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > list

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > comment

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on this.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, much as I would

> like it

> > > to

> > > > > > > resolve,

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > issue

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > remains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unresolved.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will give you a

> relevant

> > > > > > > example to

> > > > > > > > > > > explain

> > > > > > > > > > > > > how

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VarGE

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > context of plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna Shad-VargaKE -

> Is

> > > > > pointing

> > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > all

> > > > > > > > > > > > > vargas -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plural.You

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > may

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > note

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that the grammatical

> > > ending is

> > > > > > > > > with ''E''

> > > > > > > > > > > > > showing

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plurals

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expressed with such an

> > > ending.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now from

> Vrishamsha''Ka''

> > > and

> > > > > > > Tulamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > example we

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > conclude

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VargaKA and VarGA can

> be

> > > used

> > > > > for

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > purpose in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ekavachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > singular form and

> VargaKE

> > > and

> > > > > > > VarGE

> > > > > > > > > can be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bahuvachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plural form.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope this may help

> us in

> > > > > > > resolving

> > > > > > > > > our

> > > > > > > > > > > > > issue.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this

> > > > > incoming

> > > > > > > > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Checked by AVG Free

> > > Edition.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 /

> Virus

> > > > > Database:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of

> this

> > > > > message

> > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > been

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this

> > > incoming

> > > > > > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Checked by AVG Free

> Edition.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus

> > > Database:

> > > > > > > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this

> > > message

> > > > > have

> > > > > > > been

> > > > > > > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this

> incoming

> > > > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus

> Database:

> > > > > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this

> message

> > > have

> > > > > been

> > > > > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

> > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message

> have

> > > been

> > > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

> message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have

> been

> > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > 269.10.2/890 -

> > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> 269.10.2/890 -

> > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > -----------------

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/890 -

> > > Release

> > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > ---------------------

> ----

> > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.4/896 -

> Release

> > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > 7/11/2007 4:09 PM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeep,

 

If you read your previous mails, you will find you questioning the

translation of Sitaram Jha and even the commentary of Bhattotpala.

 

If you think Dahshaadhyaayi is an independent astrology classic which is

not a commentary, you are free to think that. I was talking about the

Sanskrit version of Bhattotpala and Sitaram Jha's Sanskrit and Hindi

commentary on it that you questioned. I fail to understand why only

Malayalam commentary/translation of Sanskrit (original work if you like)

is acceptable and not Hindi or Sanskrit.

 

But then you may have some more information about Dashaadhyaayi's being

an original work that I do not possess. I seem to remember even the

Prashna Marga whose authority you quote to certify Dashaadhyaayi to be

the only text worthy of praise (or words to that effect) tells that

Brihat jataka is difficult to comprehend by even intelligent persons and

yet with the help of Commentaries of Bhattotpala and others it is

possible to understand the book at shloka 28 part one of that classic.

So unlike what is being portrayed, Prashna Marga did not only talk about

Dashaaadhyaayi as the only interpretation of Brihat jataka.

 

 

Chandrashekhar.

 

vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>

> For me knowledge has no barriers like Region or Religion.

>

> I do not think i have said Bhatolpala is wrong.And i do not think

> Bhatolpapala can be wrong.On the other hand the sanskrit english

> trasnlators of bhatolpala might have committed a mistake.

>

> Dashadhayi is not a mere commentary,it gives explanation and no one

> can misinterpret.

>

> Ofcourse the ones havign PHD and all are learned.No doubt.But we

> cannot equate them with the author of Dashadhayayi.

>

> Bhatolpala and Dashadhyayi may be equated.But translation of

> Bhatolpala into english and dashadhyayi may not be compared.It is my

> view and you can very well disagree.

>

> Respect

> Pradeep

> , Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

>> Dear Pradeep,

>>

>> Have I said I was not happy with Dashaadhyaayi? If you remember our

>>

> old

>

>> correspondence, I think it was I who mentioned that Prashna Marga

>>

> talks

>

>> highly about Dashaadhyaayi. My point is about only accepting the

>> interpretation of Dashaadhyaayi and not others. If you remember you

>> rejected the commentary of Bhattotpala who is considered amongst

>>

> the few

>

>> top and contemporary commentators on Brihat jataka along with Rudra

>> Bhatt and also that of Sitaram Jha a Sanskrit scholar and professor

>>

> of

>

>> astrology with Banaras Hindu University and have always been

>>

> declaring

>

>> that only what is said in Dashaadhyaayi, to the exclusion of all

>>

> other

>

>> classics that are as much or more respected, is right. My comments

>>

> are

>

>> on that part of your arguments and not on Dashaadhyaayi per-se.

>>

>> Saravali translation that I have with me does talk about mutual

>>

> aspect

>

>> of Shukra and Shani from their exchanged Navamshas, so again this

>> insistence of accepting only your translation is puzzling. This is

>>

> from

>

>> the hindi " Kantimati " commentary of Saravali by Dr. Muralidhar

>> Chaturvedi who was Jyotishacharya and Vidyaavaridhi (Ph.D.). By the

>>

> way

>

>> Saravali was written by Kalyanvarma who is said to have hailed from

>> Bundelkhand in Hindi heartland.

>>

>> Chandrashekhar.

>>

>>

>>

>> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>>

>>> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>>>

>>> Kindly read what was the opinion of dashadhyayi before you may

>>> criticize the valuable text.After mentioning the whe shloka as

>>> one,the author said Thatha cha Saravalyam.

>>>

>>> Now as both of us understand cha as ''and'',does it mean the whole

>>> shloka is one or are they two,especially as cha comes

>>> after ''shaukre -belonging to shukra''.

>>>

>>> As you were not happy with Dashadhyayi,there were views from jeeva

>>> sharma,sruthakeerthi,Garga(giantly figures).Now Saravli has been

>>> quoted.

>>>

>>> Respect

>>> Pradeep

>>>

>>>

>>> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

>>> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

>>>

>>>> Dear Pradeep,

>>>>

>>>> If you think " ca " does not mean AND, in Sanskrit then there may

>>>>

> not

>

>>> be

>>>

>>>> any point in discussing this any further. And if translations of

>>>>

>>> all

>>>

>>>> other learned scholars are to be rejected in favour of

>>>>

>>> Dashaadhyaayi,

>>>

>>>> then there is no use discussing what Parashara said too as

>>>>

>>> Dashaadhyaayi

>>>

>>>> is a commentary on Brihat jataka.

>>>>

>>>> Personally, I do not think that only Dashaadhyaayi encompasses

>>>>

> all

>

>>> the

>>>

>>>> vedic astrological knowledge though it is one amongst the

>>>>

> respected

>

>>> texts.

>>>

>>>> Chandrashekhar.

>>>>

>>>> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>>>>>

>>>>> If you remember our first discussion,which is present in the

>>>>> archives,you were only mentioning about shukra and saturn in

>>>>> paraspara amsha and aspecting each other.You had added that

>>>>>

> these

>

>>> are

>>>

>>>>> aspects in Trimshamsha chakra.

>>>>>

>>>>> I had then quoted the second line which points to Lagna being

>>>>>

>>> that of

>>>

>>>>> Shukra and its navamsha in ghata rashi.

>>>>>

>>>>> For which your reply was we are looking into different texts.

>>>>>

>>>>> You have only quoted the 2nd line from Saravali.

>>>>>

>>>>> The full shloka in Saravali is as follows -

>>>>> Shukra Sithau yadi paraspara bhaga samsthau

>>>>> shaukre cha drishti pathagavudaye ghatamshe

>>>>>

>>>>> Thus the first line does not contain any aspect mentioned.How

>>>>>

> can

>

>>> we

>>>

>>>>> say that the first line is stand alone.Do you say if Shukra

>>>>>

> and

>

>>>>> Saturn are in each others amsha a lady will behave like this.

>>>>> The second line makes it complete.The lagna should be that of

>>>>> shukra,saturn and venus should aspect each other,and lagnamsha

>>>>>

>>> should

>>>

>>>>> fall in Ghatamsha.

>>>>>

>>>>> Thus Dashadhyayi kara is crystal clear on what Saravali is

>>>>> saying.Atleast for this shloka i feel there is no ambiguity

>>>>>

>>> needed.

>>>

>>>>> Respect

>>>>> Pradeep

>>>>>

>>>>> Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> Dear Pradeep,

>>>>>>

>>>>>> If Dashaadhyaayi thinks Saravali is a standard text to rely

>>>>>>

>>> upon (

>>>

>>>>> as

>>>>>

>>>>>> you have quoted a reference therein quoting Saravali to

>>>>>>

> support

>

>>>>> some

>>>>>

>>>>>> interpretation) why say that other concepts in Saravali are

>>>>>>

>>> wrong?

>>>

>>>>>> Saravali says " Shaukre ca drishtipathagaavudaye ghataamshe "

>>>>>>

> etc.

>

>>>>>> indicating the necessity of exchange of amshas and mutual

>>>>>>

> aspect

>

>>>>> between

>>>>>

>>>>>> Shukra and Shani as concurrent condition for the first yoga

>>>>>>

> to

>

>>>>> fructify.

>>>>>

>>>>>> And then goes on to say that if for a lagna having rasi of

>>>>>>

>>> Shukra

>>>

>>>>> and

>>>>>

>>>>>> navamsha of Shani similar results would ensue. GhataaMshe

>>>>>>

> has

>

>>> been

>>>

>>>>>> interpreted as the amsha of Shani and not merely amsha of

>>>>>>

>>> Kumbha by

>>>

>>>>> many

>>>>>

>>>>>> translators.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> I can not comment on the interpretation of Dashaadhyaayikar

>>>>>>

> of

>

>>> the

>>>

>>>>>> shloka but the shloka from Brihat Jataka that I have also

>>>>>>

> says

>

>>>>>> " driksamsthaavasitasito parasparaamshe shoke vaa yadi ghata

>>>>>> raashisambhavoMshaH. " followed by the next line that I did

>>>>>>

> not

>

>>> find

>>>

>>>>>> necessary to quote as it does not talk about the yoga but

>>>>>>

> only

>

>>> the

>>>

>>>>>> results, which you have already quoted and I felt may not be

>>>>>>

>>>>> necessary

>>>>>

>>>>>> to post on line.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> That there are two distinct yogas is also not new to

>>>>>>

>>> translators of

>>>

>>>>>> Brihat jataka. Since you accept that the first line does say

>>>>>>

>>> about

>>>

>>>>>> occupation of each others amsha AND aspect on each other is

>>>>>>

>>> indeed

>>>

>>>>>> covered in the first line, the reluctance to accept aspects

>>>>>>

> in

>

>>>>> specific

>>>>>

>>>>>> cases is something that I am not able to understand.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Chandrashekhar.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> I can clearly understand your position.Especially as you

>>>>>>>

> have

>

>>>>>>> said,the texts that we are referring to are different.Here

>>>>>>>

>>> comes

>>>

>>>>> the

>>>>>

>>>>>>> importance of Dashadhyayi.After my explanation you can

>>>>>>>

> also

>

>>> see

>>>

>>>>> that

>>>>>

>>>>>>> it is not only dashadhyayi ,but Saravali as well is

>>>>>>>

> having the

>

>>>>> same

>>>>>

>>>>>>> opinion on the shloka explained below.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> As i have mentioned yesterday,dashadhyayi is not covering

>>>>>>>

>>> just the

>>>

>>>>>>> first 10 chapters as the name suggests.For example let me

>>>>>>>

>>> take a

>>>

>>>>>>> chapter towards the end ,chapter 22-Sthree Jataka Adhyaya.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Thalakkulathu Govinda Bhattathiri has given

>>>>>>>

>>> interpretations,for

>>>

>>>>> all

>>>>>

>>>>>>> the shlokas from 1 through 16,except shloka 13, while

>>>>>>>

>>> interpreting

>>>

>>>>>>> chapters 1 through 10. Shloka 13 as you can see is pretty

>>>>>>>

>>> straight

>>>

>>>>>>> forward.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Now let us take the shloka which as per you is referring

>>>>>>> to ''Trimshamsha Chakra'' with aspects therein.Firstly the

>>>>>>>

>>> results

>>>

>>>>>>> for planets being placed in rashis belonging to Mesha

>>>>>>>

>>> onwards,and

>>>

>>>>>>> within that Trimshamshas belonging to Mars onwards is

>>>>>>>

>>> explained

>>>

>>>>> and

>>>>>

>>>>>>> ends by shloka 6.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Now let us take

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> ''Driksamstha VasithaSithau Parasparamshe

>>>>>>> Shaukre Va yadi Ghata Rashi Sambhavomsha''

>>>>>>> Next 2 lines explains the result.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> As per you,there is only a reference regarding Venus and

>>>>>>>

>>> Saturn

>>>

>>>>>>> aspecting each other and also in each others Amsha.This is

>>>>>>>

>>> covered

>>>

>>>>>>> in the first line.My worry is where has the second line

>>>>>>>

> gone

>

>>> in

>>>

>>>>> the

>>>>>

>>>>>>> text that you are having.Either it was not interpreted or

>>>>>>>

> it

>

>>> was

>>>

>>>>>>> inadvertently got missed out from printing.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Now Dashadhyayi says -

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Driksamsthau ithyadi Yoga dvayam - Two Yogas.First one is

>>>>>>> corresponding to the first line as we have seen.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Shaukre Rashau Yadi Kumbhamshe Udethi ..Thatha

>>>>>>>

> dvitheeyam -

>

>>> the

>>>

>>>>>>> second.Meaning ,The Ascendant should be either Tula or

>>>>>>>

>>> Vrishabha

>>>

>>>>> and

>>>>>

>>>>>>> it should have Kumbhamsha(Kumbha is Ghata - Ghata Rashi

>>>>>>> Sambhavomsha).

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Now the author says, as per some these two can be taken

>>>>>>>

> as one

>

>>>>> yoga

>>>>>

>>>>>>> as well(Saravali too says so).

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Parasparamshagatha Vasitha Sithou Paraspara Drishtau

>>>>>>>

> Shaukre

>

>>>>>>> Rashavudayathi Kumbhamshakashcha Bhavathi Yadee - then the

>>>>>>> result.And the author says -T hatha Cha Saravalyam.And

>>>>>>>

> quotes

>

>>>>>>> corresponding shloka from Saravali,where again the said

>>>>>>>

> line

>

>>> is

>>>

>>>>>>> present(sanskrit).Thus it says - For a Lady to have such a

>>>>>>>

>>> strong

>>>

>>>>>>> sexual desire - Purusha Veshadhari(One dressign up as a

>>>>>>>

> man -

>

>>> thus

>>>

>>>>>>> lesbian),her ascendant should belong to Venus and the

>>>>>>>

> amsha

>

>>> of her

>>>

>>>>>>> ascendant should fall in Kumbha Rashi,and in her chart

>>>>>>>

> Saturn

>

>>> and

>>>

>>>>>>> Venus should aspect each other and also have exchange of

>>>>>>>

>>> amshas.

>>>

>>>>>>> Thus you see,in either case there is a line which is

>>>>>>>

> missing

>

>>> in

>>>

>>>>> your

>>>>>

>>>>>>> book,which helps us to understand that it is not a varga

>>>>>>>

>>> chakra.I

>>>

>>>>>>> dont know how it happened.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Thus if Dashadhyayi was not there,then i would have also

>>>>>>>

> not

>

>>> got

>>>

>>>>> any

>>>>>

>>>>>>> opportunity to understand this in such detail.This is the

>>>>>>>

>>> beauty

>>>

>>>>> of

>>>>>

>>>>>>> this text and as you know without any value ParashnaMarga

>>>>>>>

>>> will not

>>>

>>>>>>> praise it with such a high regard.The rest of the text is

>>>>>>>

>>> great

>>>

>>>>> and

>>>>>

>>>>>>> explains every concept with authority,quoting many

>>>>>>>

> sources.

>

>>>>>>> I consider you with great regard(Gurusthana) and holds

>>>>>>>

> respect

>

>>>>>>> towards your views and analysis.You may kindly understand

>>>>>>>

>>> that,i

>>>

>>>>>>> will not misquote and misrepresent,especially when the

>>>>>>>

>>> subject is

>>>

>>>>>>> Jyotish.If some others in this list is having

>>>>>>>

> mistrust,they

>

>>> should

>>>

>>>>>>> understand that i am not the only keralite living in this

>>>>>>>

>>> universe

>>>

>>>>>>> and they can seek help from others to see if i am

>>>>>>>

> cheating.I

>

>>> have

>>>

>>>>> no

>>>>>

>>>>>>> hatred towards their words.If it brings happiness to them

>>>>>>>

> let

>

>>> them

>>>

>>>>>>> continue with false allegations.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> I will prepare the paper and then would request your good

>>>>>>>

>>> self to

>>>

>>>>>>> review.I am so thankful that you have tested me with tough

>>>>>>>

>>>>> questions

>>>>>

>>>>>>> and logic,which has helped me to learn more.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Respect

>>>>>>> Pradeep

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>> <%40>

>>>

>>>>> <%40>

>>>>>

>>>>>>> <%

>>>>>>>

> 40>, " vijayadas_pradeep "

>

>>>>>>> <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Purna drishte Purna Yogam Ardha Drishte ardhameva cha

>>>>>>>> Pada drishte Padayogamiti gyeyam kramat phalam.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Is mentioned and hence the aspects are not about Rashi

>>>>>>>>

>>> drishti.

>>>

>>>>>>>> Now as i have mentioned in the past,though the name is

>>>>>>>> dashadhyayi,the author covers shlokas,from most of the

>>>>>>>>

>>> chapters

>>>

>>>>> as

>>>>>

>>>>>>>> and when he finds some interrelationship or link.This i

>>>>>>>>

>>> consider

>>>

>>>>>>> as a

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> real blessing.Now how amshakas are interpreted,has been

>>>>>>>> demonstrated ,for numerous contexts,and thus forming a

>>>>>>>>

>>> guideline

>>>

>>>>>>> for

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> other shloka interpretations.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> I will see the shlokas,and will write back.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Respect

>>>>>>>> Pradeep

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>> <%40>

>>>

>>>>> <%40>

>>>>>

>>>>>>> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Dear Pradeep,

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Transits are to be seen no doubt from the rasis

>>>>>>>>>

>>> synonymous to

>>>

>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> navamsha rasis, but when it is sphuta it is of the

>>>>>>>>>

>>> navamshesha

>>>

>>>>>>> and

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> not

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> the rasis. There is a difference between the two.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> I have already said I do not consider aspects in D-

>>>>>>>>>

> charts,

>

>>>>>>> unless

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> specifically mentioned in some yogas, and also that

>>>>>>>>>

>>> barring

>>>

>>>>>>>> navamsha

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> charts, in other varga charts I look at rashi aspects.

>>>>>>>>>

>>> That

>>>

>>>>> does

>>>>>

>>>>>>>> not

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> mean I should close my eyes to what is written in

>>>>>>>>>

> other

>

>>>>>>> respected

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> texts.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> That only means I look at charts from a different

>>>>>>>>>

> angle.

>

>>>>>>>>> There is nothing in the lagna shadvargake shloka to

>>>>>>>>>

>>> indicate

>>>

>>>>>>> graded

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> aspects and so it does not rule out rashi drishti at

>>>>>>>>>

> all.

>

>>> Ans

>>>

>>>>>>> since

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> you

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> have quoted both Parashara and Jaimini you should know

>>>>>>>>>

>>> that

>>>

>>>>>>> rashi

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> drishtis are valid in Parashara too and exclusively

>>>>>>>>>

> so in

>

>>>>>>> Jaimini.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Your translation and mine of the shlokas differ and

>>>>>>>>>

> that

>

>>> is

>>>

>>>>> why

>>>>>

>>>>>>>> there is

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> no agreement. If you expect Dashaadhyaayi to give

>>>>>>>>>

>>> divisional

>>>

>>>>>>> charts

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> and

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> their interpretations, that is not possible as Varaha

>>>>>>>>>

>>> Mihira

>>>

>>>>> on

>>>>>

>>>>>>>> whose

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> work it is only a commentary does not speak of it and

>>>>>>>>>

> it

>

>>> is

>>>

>>>>>>>> commentary

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> on only 10 of the 18 adhayaayas of Brihat jataka. If

>>>>>>>>>

> you

>

>>> read

>>>

>>>>>>>> Brihat

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> jataka carefully, you will see reference o aspects in

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Trimshamsha

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> there.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Since you have many times claimed superiority of

>>>>>>>>>

>>> Dashaadhyaayi

>>>

>>>>>>> over

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> many

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> of the more ancient and respected classics, I find it

>>>>>>>>>

>>> strange

>>>

>>>>> as

>>>>>

>>>>>>> to

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> why

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> you do not want to accept what is said in the original

>>>>>>>>>

>>> text on

>>>

>>>>>>>> which

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Dashaadhyaayi is only a commentary and that too on 10

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>> adhyaayas

>>>>>

>>>>>>> as

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> name suggests (that does not, of course, make it any

>>>>>>>>>

> less

>

>>>>>>>> respectable).

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> There are many references to planets being placed in a

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>> navamsha,

>>>>>

>>>>>>>> which

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> is not identical with the rasi whose name the navamsha

>>>>>>>>>

>>> enjoys,

>>>

>>>>>>> and

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> results from them in the 21st adhyaaya. How do you map

>>>>>>>>>

>>> back

>>>

>>>>> such

>>>>>

>>>>>>> a

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> navamsha to the rasi and what should be the logic? You

>>>>>>>>>

>>> also

>>>

>>>>> see

>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> reference to Guru occupying own Trimshamsha,

>>>>>>>>>

> irrespective

>

>>> of

>>>

>>>>>>> rasi

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> in the

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> same adhayaaya. There are too many references like

>>>>>>>>>

> this to

>

>>>>>>> question

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> theory that the amshas need always be mapped back to

>>>>>>>>>

>>> identical

>>>

>>>>>>> rasi

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> in

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> rasi chart.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Could you tell why this reluctance to accept Varaha

>>>>>>>>>

>>> Mihira?

>>>

>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Meshamshe, Vrishamshe Transit results can be seen

>>>>>>>>>>

> from

>

>>> Mesha

>>>

>>>>>>> and

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Vrishabha rashis.Thus you are aware of what i am

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> saying.Moreover

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> we

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> have seen paparkshe.we have seen meshadi rashige

>>>>>>>>>>

>>> swamshe.we

>>>

>>>>>>> have

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> seen

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> that bhrigwonkaraka varge ,as per your understanding

>>>>>>>>>>

>>> cannot

>>>

>>>>>>>> satisfy

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> both mars and venus.The very next shloka is talking

>>>>>>>>>>

>>> about

>>>

>>>>> mars

>>>>>

>>>>>>> and

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> venus yuti or aspecting.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Now we can forget all these as you are not williing

>>>>>>>>>>

> to

>

>>>>> accept

>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> rashi,riksha etc as valid reasoning.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> We have seen Lagna shadvargake shloka with aspectual

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> grades,proving

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> that they ae not rashi drishtis.Couple of days back

>>>>>>>>>>

> and

>

>>> many

>>>

>>>>>>>> times in

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> the past,i have heard from you that you don't

>>>>>>>>>>

> support

>

>>>>> aspects

>>>>>

>>>>>>> in

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Vargas.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> If you still have the sam views,then to understand

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>> shadvargake

>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> shloka,we have to see planets aspecting lagna

>>>>>>>>>>

> in ''six

>

>>>>>>> charts''.As

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> lagna can fall in any rashi,you have to accept

>>>>>>>>>>

> aspects

>

>>> fully

>>>

>>>>>>> in

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> all

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Varga charts.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> This is relevant to our discussion as lagnamsha is

>>>>>>>>>>

> also

>

>>>>> part of

>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> shadvargas of lagna.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> As you are aware ,the BPHS translator too has

>>>>>>>>>>

> expressed

>

>>> his

>>>

>>>>>>>> concern.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Regds

>>>>>>>>>> Pradeep

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>

>>> <%40>

>>>

>>>>> <%40>

>>>>>

>>>>>>> <%40>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> <%40>,

>>>>>>>>>>

> Chandrashekhar

>

>>>>>>>>>> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Pradeep,

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> How could I think shadvarga of lagna is shadvarga

>>>>>>>>>>>

> of

>

>>>>> rashi?

>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Lagna

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> is the

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> point on the eastern horizon at the time of birth

>>>>>>>>>>>

> of a

>

>>>>>>> jataka.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> There is no dispute about what is lagnamsha and

>>>>>>>>>>>

> what

>

>>> is

>>>

>>>>>>>> karakamsha

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> at

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> all. At the same time when reference is to a graha

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>> falling in

>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Lagnamsha

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> it refers to the navamsha rasi (or sector ruled by

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> one of

>>>

>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> rasis

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> of a

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> planet, barring Sun and Chandra if you like it

>>>>>>>>>>>

> that

>

>>> way)

>>>

>>>>> in

>>>>>

>>>>>>>> which

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> lagnamsha falls. Now that being so where is the

>>>>>>>>>>>

> shubha

>

>>>>> graha

>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> supposed to

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> fall in the shloka I quoted? Same with the Shubh

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> graha in

>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Karakamsha and

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> needing drishti of shubha graha on it. It is easy

>>>>>>>>>>>

> to

>

>>> say

>>>

>>>>> that

>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> these

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> need to be seen in rasi, but for lack of the

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> reference to

>>>

>>>>>>> rasi,

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> there,

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> there is no reason to assume that it does not

>>>>>>>>>>>

> refer to

>

>>>>>>> navamsha

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> rasi.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> The reference to grahas

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> in " Meshaamshe " , " Vrishabhaamshe "

>>>

>>>>>>> etc

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> are

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> quite

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> clear, in BPHS.

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> Take care,

>>>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar.

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course Yes,you are correct.Varga is found for

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> this

>>>

>>>>>>> bindu

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> and in

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> the case of planets their degree decides.The

>>>>>>>>>>>>

> rest

>

>>> you

>>>

>>>>> have

>>>>>

>>>>>>>> stated

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> is

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> also as per definition.My point was made under

>>>>>>>>>>>>

> the

>

>>>>>>> impression

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> that

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> you have a view that,shadvarga of Lagna is

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> shadvarga of

>>>

>>>>> a

>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> rashi.If so

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> it is not.Shad varga is found for Lagna bindu.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> The full Rashi/Kshethra in which Lagna bindu

>>>>>>>>>>>>

> falls

>

>>>>> becomes

>>>>>

>>>>>>> its

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> first

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> Varga.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> The Translation is entiterely correct and no

>>>>>>>>>>>>

> one can

>

>>>>>>>>>> contradict.This

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> is similar to one planet aspecting shadvargas of

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> lagna.

>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> Lagnamsha is already covered in the shadvargas

>>>>>>>>>>>>

> of

>

>>>>>>>>>> lagna.Karakamsha is

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> similar too.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> Now let us see it on a chart.Karkamasha is in

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Dhanu.Jupiter is

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> placed

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> in Mithuna Rashi.Shubha graha is aspecting

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> Karakamsha

>>>

>>>>> Lagna

>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> (Rashi).Similarly Lagnamsha.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> You are already aware of the rules for aspects.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> Respect

>>>>>>>>>>>> Pradeep

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> <%40>

>>>

>>>>> <%40>

>>>>>

>>>>>>> <%40>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> <%40>

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40>,

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> Chandrashekhar

>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Pradeep,

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see your point of view. anyway even within

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>> shadvargas

>>>>>

>>>>>>> we

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> look

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> for

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> degree of a planet falling within a certain

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> span

>

>>> of

>>>

>>>>>>> degrees

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> and

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> not

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> one

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular bindu.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree that rashi is a Varga and my question

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> is

>

>>> if

>>>

>>>>> one

>>>>>

>>>>>>> can

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> look at

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> aspects in one Varga why not in other Vargas?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> I am

>

>>>>> sure

>>>>>

>>>>>>> you

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> know

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> that

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> personally I use navamsha to find only the

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> strength of

>>>

>>>>>>>> grahas,

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> but

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> there

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> is no reason to rule out aspects in Navamshas

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> or

>

>>> other

>>>

>>>>>>>> charts

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> totally.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> One of the raj yogas mentioned by Parashara

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> talks

>

>>> of

>>>

>>>>>>> aspect

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> of

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> shubha

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> grahas on the karakamsha and Lagnamsha which

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> should

>>>

>>>>> also

>>>>>

>>>>>>> be

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> tenanted by

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shubha grahas, leaving no doubt as to where

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> the

>

>>>>> aspects

>>>>>

>>>>>>> are

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> to

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> be

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> seen.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> And for the record the translation to that

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> effect

>

>>> is

>>>

>>>>> by

>>>>>

>>>>>>> an

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> eminent

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> astrologer who was Professor of astrology in

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> Banaras

>>>

>>>>>>> Hindu

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> University.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Take care,

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lagna as a bindu was mentioned for driving

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> home

>

>>> the

>>>

>>>>>>>> shadvarga

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calculations,if any members were having

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> doubts.For

>>>

>>>>>>>> shadvarga

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calculation of planets too we need the

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> bindu or

>

>>>>> degree

>>>>>

>>>>>>> of

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> a

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> planet

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within a rashi, as you are aware.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have to look at Rashis.This is so because

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> Rashi

>>>

>>>>>>> (one 30

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> degree

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sector ) is the first varga.As this Varga is

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> synonymous

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> with

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Bhava

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> houses are analysed w.r to Rashis.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Respect

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pradeep

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> <%40>

>>>

>>>>> <%40>

>>>>>

>>>>>>> <%40>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> <%40>

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40>

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40>,

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>> Chandrashekhar

>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Pradeep,

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If lagna is a bindu a you propose, and

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> nothing

>

>>>>> more,

>>>>>

>>>>>>>> then

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> how

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> can

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indicate an entire rasi? Now if this is

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> correct,

>>>

>>>>> and

>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> technically

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is,

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then by your reckoning there is no need to

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> look at

>>>

>>>>>>> rasis

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> too. Is

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what you mean to say?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If shadvargas are not related to the

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> portion

>

>>>>> falling

>>>>>

>>>>>>> in

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> lagna

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rasis,

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which holds the degree of lagna Madhya,

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> then

>

>>> it

>>>

>>>>>>> appears

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> we

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> must

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> ask

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sages to redefine Vargas. I doubt they

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> need

>

>>> our

>>>

>>>>>>> advise.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Take care,

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There was a purpose.I just wanted to

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> explain it

>>>

>>>>> to

>>>>>

>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> members if

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some of them are not sure on what

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> shadvarga

>

>>> of

>>>

>>>>>>> lagna

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> is

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> and

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> how it

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is calculated.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As you have said Vargas are divisions

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> of a

>

>>>>>>> rashi.But

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> shadvargas of

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lagna is not the Vargas falling in

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> Lagna.Here

>>>

>>>>>>> lagna is

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> not a

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rashi,but a bindu.Vargas are found from

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> a

>

>>>>>>> degree.The

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> degree

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> of a

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> planet or degree of lagna.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As you may know we do notneed six

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> charts to

>

>>>>>>> dtermine

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> shadvargas of

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lagna.All we need is the degree of lagna

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> and the

>>>

>>>>>>> rashi

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> rising.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let us take an example.Lagna is at 11

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> degrees in

>>>

>>>>>>>> dhanu.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let us find the shadvargas of Lagna

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> with th

>

>>> help

>>>

>>>>>>> of

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> rising

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> rashi

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> degree.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1st Varga - The Rashi in which Lagna

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> bindu

>

>>> is

>>>

>>>>>>>> falling -

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Dhanu

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2nd Varga - The Hora in which Lagna

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> bindu is

>

>>>>>>> falling -

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> As

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> 11

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> degrees

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> falls in the 1st half of dhanu - Surya

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> Hora

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3rd Varga - The drekkana in which Lagna

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> bindu is

>>>

>>>>>>>> falling -

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> As

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> 11

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> degrees falls in the 2nd 1/3rd of

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> dhanu -

>

>>>>> Drekkana

>>>>>

>>>>>>> is

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Mesha.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4th Varga - As 11 degrees falls in the

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> 3rd

>

>>>>>>>>>> saptamsha ,Lagna

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> saptamsha

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is Kumbha.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Similraly - Lagna navamsha is

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> Karka,Lagna

>

>>>>>>> Trimshamsha

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> is

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> dhanu.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus the purpose of whole exercise was

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> to

>

>>> say

>>>

>>>>> that

>>>>>

>>>>>>>> when

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> we say

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shadvargas of Lagna or Mars,it does not

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> mean the

>>>

>>>>>>>> rashis

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> owned

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> by

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lagna or Mars.But the Rashis on towhich

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> they are

>>>

>>>>>>>>>> placed,having

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hora,drekkana etc etc.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vargas of Mars in the 2nd Rashi from

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> karakamsha

>>>

>>>>>>> too

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> is no

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> differet.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are many meanings,that is why

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> Rashi is

>

>>>>>>> called as

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kshethra /Riksha /havana etc.But i don't

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> think

>>>

>>>>>>> sage

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> will

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> use

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> saword to represent something belonging

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> to

>

>>> same

>>>

>>>>>>> class.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example sage will not use ''sva'' to

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> mean

>>>

>>>>> 2nd

>>>>>

>>>>>>> as

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> well

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> as

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3rd.Then

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we cannot interpret.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Similarly Rashi and navamsha will not be

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> represented

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> using the

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> word.Rashi/Kshethra/Riksha/Bhvana/Lagna

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> etc

>

>>> are

>>>

>>>>>>>> synonyms

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> an

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> ifthey

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are used for navamsha then what is the

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> whole

>

>>>>>>> purpose

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> behind

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defintion.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the other hand sva was used for iems

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> from

>

>>>>>>> different

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> classes.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This wasin mind while making such a

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> statement.I

>>>

>>>>>>> will

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> try

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> my

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> best

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> polish my style of writing.I accept my

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>> limitations

>>>>>

>>>>>>> in

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> writing.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Respect

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pradeep

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> <%40>

>>>

>>>>> <%40>

>>>>>

>>>>>>> <%40>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> <%40>

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40>

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40>,

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Pradeep,

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have not understood your question

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> or the

>

>>>>>>> intent

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> behind

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> that.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vargas are divisions, within a rasi,

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> ruled by

>>>

>>>>>>>> different

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> grahas.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one wants t look at Vargas falling in

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> lagna

>>>

>>>>> the

>>>>>

>>>>>>> shad

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Vargas

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> will

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the rasi equivalent occurring at lagna

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>> position

>>>>>

>>>>>>> in

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> the 6

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> divisional

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> charts of Rashi, Hora, Dreshkana,

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> Navamsha,

>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Dwaadashamsha

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> and

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trimshamsha. Or at least this is what

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> I

>

>>> have

>>>

>>>>>>> learnt.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sages did not use words in vain or

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> context. I

>>>

>>>>>>>> agree. But

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> that

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean they used the words to mean only

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> one

>

>>>>> thing

>>>>>

>>>>>>>> always.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never said that the meaning can be

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> changed

>>>

>>>>> to

>>>>>

>>>>>>>> suit our

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convenience and

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would request you not to attribute

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> such

>

>>>>>>>> sentiments to

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> me.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However I do say that word are used in

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>> different

>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> contexts to

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different things, especially in

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> Sanskrit

>

>>>>> texts of

>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Jyotish. I

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have,

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a few minutes back use of " Sva " with

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> different

>>>

>>>>>>>> meaning

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> at

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> places by Varaha Mihira to you. I hope

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> you do

>>>

>>>>>>> not

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> also

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> attribute

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words that you attributed to me to the

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>> venerated

>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Varaha

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> Mihira.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Take care,

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar,.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pls tell me what you mean by

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> shadvargas

>

>>> of

>>>

>>>>>>>> lagna.How

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> do

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> you

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> find

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them.Do you go by ownership or

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> placement

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Rashi/navamsha/dwadshamsha

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc).

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are shlokas in Varahamihiras

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> text

>

>>>>> which

>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> says ,Okarkshe

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Purushamshakae.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which means in Ojarashi and Oja

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> amsha.

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As per me sages will not use any

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> words

>

>>> out

>>>

>>>>> of

>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> context.If

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> he

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wants

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say amsha he will mention it.He will

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> not use

>>>

>>>>>>>> Rashi to

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> mean as

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amsha.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ojarkshe is Oja Rashi.Similarly

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> Paparkshe is

>>>

>>>>>>> Papa

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Rashi.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you want to say as per our

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> conveninece we

>>>

>>>>>>> can

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> change

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of riksha/rashi/bhavana/bhavas as

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> navamsha

>>>

>>>>>>> then i

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> cannot

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> say

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can only respect your views.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Respect

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pradeep

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> <%40>

>>>

>>>>> <%40>

>>>>>

>>>>>>> <%40>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> <%40>

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40>

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> 40>,

>

>>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Pradeep,

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will tell you why that happens.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> You

>

>>>>> begin

>>>>>

>>>>>>> with

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> quoting

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Parashara

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then give a sutra from Jaimini as

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> being

>>>

>>>>> said

>>>>>

>>>>>>> by

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> Parashara.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interpretation of sutras is not

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> the

>

>>>>> easiest

>>>>>

>>>>>>> of

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> things,

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini's Upadesha sutras. That

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> the

>

>>> sutras

>>>

>>>>>>> use

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> KaTaPaYaadi

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encryption

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes them even more difficult to

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>> interpret.

>>>>>

>>>>>>> I

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> am

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> sure

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> you

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> noticed

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this when Sreenadh interpreted the

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> KaTaPaYaadi

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Varga in

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> a

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fashion.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then there is your insistence to

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> let

>

>>>>> Sanskrit

>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> grammar

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> give

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a go

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that can make interpretation of a

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> shloka

>>>

>>>>> or

>>>>>

>>>>>>>> sutra

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> fit

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> your

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposition.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any of the Shodasha Vargas of a

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> rasi

>

>>> can

>>>

>>>>> be

>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> referred to

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> as

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Varga,

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but as

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> far as I know in astrology, when

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> one

>

>>> talks

>>>

>>>>>>> of

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Varga,

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> without

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> qualifying

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it, or Amshas that generally

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> refers to

>

>>>>>>> navamsha

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> or

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dwadashaamsha.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another reason that we can not

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> agree,

>

>>> or

>>>

>>>>>>> seem to

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> agree,

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> is

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reluctant to call a navamsha by

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> the

>

>>>>>>> nomenclature

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> navamsha

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rasi.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes it difficult to convey what

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> I

>

>>> mean

>>>

>>>>> to

>>>>>

>>>>>>> say

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> in

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> English

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the language of the net and which

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> both of

>>>

>>>>> us

>>>>>

>>>>>>>> know.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Now

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since you

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do not

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to use the word Mesha

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> navamsha as

>

>>>>> Mesha

>>>>>

>>>>>>> is

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> a

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> rashi

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> and

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic it can not be a navamsha, it

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> becomes

>>>

>>>>>>>>>> difficult to

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convey

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what I

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand by the texts.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will like to draw your

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> attention to

>

>>> the

>>>

>>>>>>>> literal

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> word

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rasi. It means a heap and nothing

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> more. In

>>>

>>>>>>>> astrology

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> since

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encompasses many stars that make

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> up a

>

>>>>>>> nakshatra

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> 1/12th

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> division of

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the zodiac is called a Rasi. Or at

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> least

>>>

>>>>>>> this

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> is my

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason of using the word rasi for

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> the

>

>>>>> 1/12th

>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> division

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> of the

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zodiac.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not agree that by Chandra in

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> Guru

>

>>>>> Varga

>>>>>

>>>>>>> it

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> is

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> meant

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Varga of

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chandra is being seen. To me we

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> are

>

>>>>> talking

>>>>>

>>>>>>>> about is

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> whether

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chandra is

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> falling in the Varga of Guru in

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> which

>

>>> ever

>>>

>>>>>>> rasi

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> he

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> is

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> occupying.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So in

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navamsha we see whether Chandra is

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>> occupying

>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Pisces

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> or

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sagittarius

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> navamsha. I also do not agree that

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> there

>>>

>>>>> are

>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Vargas

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> of

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chandra

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of any

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> planet for that matter. The 16

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> Vargas

>

>>> that

>>>

>>>>>>>> Parashara

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> talks

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that of a Rasi, beginning from the

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> Rashi

>>>

>>>>>>> itself.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the Vargas are not owned by

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> different

>>>

>>>>>>>> planets,

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> pray

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> why

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the sage

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tell us to see occupation of a

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> friend, own

>>>

>>>>>>> etc.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Varga to

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assess

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strength of a planet in the Varga

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>> concerned?

>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have interacted with many

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> astrologers of

>>>

>>>>>>>>>> yesteryears

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> (with

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> respect to

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my age group) and have never found

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> them

>>>

>>>>>>>> claiming the

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> Vargas

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only lagna and planets.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you insist that sage Parashara

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> gave the

>>>

>>>>>>> SU.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> 52.-

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> " Tatra

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bhrigwongaraka

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> varge paradarikaha " , perhaps you

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> are

>

>>>>>>> referring

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> to

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> some

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> edition

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BPHS

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I do not have. However I do

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> have

>

>>> that

>>>

>>>>>>> in

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> umpteen

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> texts on Jaimini that I do have

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> in my

>

>>>>>>> library.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> And

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> by

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way,

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scholars have interpreted that to

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> mean 9th

>>>

>>>>>>> from

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> Karakamsha

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 2nd.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not agree that a graha can

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> simultaneously

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> occupy

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Varga

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Venus and Mars, simultaneously,

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> as is

>

>>>>> being

>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> suggested

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether in

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rasi or

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in any of the Vargas. It could

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> only

>

>>> occupy

>>>

>>>>>>> one

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> or

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> other.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have seen you arguing in favor

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> of

>

>>>>> looking

>>>>>

>>>>>>> at

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shadvargas of

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grahas Venus and Mars. I would

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> like

>

>>> you to

>>>

>>>>>>> look

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> at

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> all

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> six

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> charts

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whose Vargas together are

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> referred as

>

>>>>>>>> Shadvargas and

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> try to

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> find

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether they do indeed contain

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> the 6

>

>>>>> Vargas

>>>>>

>>>>>>> of

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Venus

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> and 6

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vargas

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mars. I am sure that you will find

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> them to

>>>

>>>>>>>> contain

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> only

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> 5

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vargas

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each of

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the grahas. Once you confirm this

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> by

>

>>>>> looking

>>>>>

>>>>>>> at

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> 6

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> Vargas

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self,

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tell me how one can look at

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> Shadvargas of

>>>

>>>>>>> Venus

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> or

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Mars

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> as

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested to be the

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> interpretation of

>

>>> the

>>>

>>>>>>> sutra

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> that

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> you are

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referring to.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You may also be interested to know

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> that

>>>

>>>>>>>> Parashara

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> talks

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> of

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AK

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> falling in

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Varga of Chandra, Mars or

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> Venus

>

>>> also

>>>

>>>>>>> having

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> roving

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eye

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wives. So the combination of

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> Venus and

>

>>>>> Mars

>>>>>

>>>>>>>> being

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> only

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> giving

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the roving eye for other's wives,

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> that you

>>>

>>>>>>> are

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> advancing as

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standalone

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> principle, may not, necessarily,

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> be

>

>>> the

>>>

>>>>> way

>>>>>

>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> sage

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> looked

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Take care,

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Those were written by me.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am very dissappointed to see

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> that ,inspite

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> of

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> repeating

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numerus

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times,you are unable to get

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> what i

>

>>> am

>>>

>>>>>>> saying.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not talking about rashis

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> lorded by

>>>

>>>>>>>> shukra or

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Mars

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here.I

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about the shadvargas

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> vargas

>

>>> of

>>>

>>>>>>> mars

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> and

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> shukra.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pls tell me what is the meaning

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> of

>

>>>>>>> shadvargas

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> or

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> simply

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Varga

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lagna.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the rashi in which lagna

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> is

>

>>>>>>> placed.The

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> navamshaka of

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lagna,Trimshamshaka of Lagna

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> etc.Can we

>>>

>>>>>>> see

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> any

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> lordship

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say.Lagna does not own any

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> rashi.

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Similarly when we say vargas of

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> Venus -

>>>

>>>>> It

>>>>>

>>>>>>>> means

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Rashi

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> of

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Venus,Hora,navamshaka,drekkana,trimshamshaka

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> etc.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shadvarga is never the rashi

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> owned

>

>>> by a

>>>

>>>>>>>>>> planet.Then

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> Lagna

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have shadvarga.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the other hand if we

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> say,Chandra

>

>>> in

>>>

>>>>> Guru

>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Varga - We

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are not

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seeing

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the shadvarga of Guru,but that

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> of

>

>>>>>>> chandra.Is

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> chandra

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> placed in

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guru

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rashi?Is Chandra navamshaka in

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> Guru

>

>>>>>>> Rashi.Is

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Chandra

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trimshamshaka in

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guru Rashi etc is what we

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> check.If

>

>>> so

>>>

>>>>>>> chandras

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> vargas

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fall in

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guru

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rashis or we say chandra is in

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>> guruvargas.

>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the same reason schoplars of

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> yesteryears

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> always

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> say

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vargas

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for our natal Lagna and Planets.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the other hand you are taking

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> them as

>>>

>>>>>>>> owned by

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> a

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> planet.Every

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shadvarga that derive is like

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> that.You

>>>

>>>>> may

>>>>>

>>>>>>>> check

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> this

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> with

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shri

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Narasimha,how he is deriving it

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> for

>

>>> his

>>>

>>>>>>>> software.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the same reason Bhrigu and

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> Angara

>>>

>>>>> can

>>>>>

>>>>>>> have

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Varga

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> together

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rashi which is 2nd from

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> Karakamsha.Sage

>>>

>>>>>>>> clearly

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> talks

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vargas from both.Moreover the

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> next

>

>>>>> shloka

>>>>>

>>>>>>> is

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> talking

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> about

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mars

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Venus together or aspecting the

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> 2nd

>

>>> from

>>>

>>>>>>>>>> karakamsha.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the other hand if we go by

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> your

>

>>>>>>>> explanation,we

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> have to

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opt

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just one among shukra or Mars

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> which

>

>>> is

>>>

>>>>> not

>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> proper.Their

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joint

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> influence creates sexual drive.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I request you to kindly read

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> this

>

>>> with

>>>

>>>>>>> care.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rspect

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pradeep

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- In

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>

>

>>> <%40>

>>>

>>>>> <%40>

>>>>>

>>>>>>> <%40>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> <%40>

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40>

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> 40>

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> 40>,

>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Pradeep,

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The below remarks are not

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> from my

>

>>> mail

>>>

>>>>>>> at

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> all.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> I do

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> not

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think I would write that. I am

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> sure

>>>

>>>>> you

>>>>>

>>>>>>> know

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> that

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> this

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> style

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of writing at all.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> " >From my experience -Mars +

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> Venus

>

>>>>>>> creates

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> certin

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behaviour.I

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feel

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too would have experienced

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> this.Why

>>>

>>>>> are

>>>>>

>>>>>>> you

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> going

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> for

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> varga

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> owned by

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just one of them and that too

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> without

>>>

>>>>> a

>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> planetary

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> link

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worrying me.Shri Rath has

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> translated

>>>

>>>>> so,i

>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> agree.But

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> i

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inner feeling that Shri Rath

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> will

>

>>>>>>> definitely

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> correct

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> benfit

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of jyotish community. "

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As to why I said they could

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> not be

>

>>>>>>> having

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> their

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> Vargas

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> together in

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rasi or Bhava does not need

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> any

>

>>> deeper

>>>

>>>>>>>>>> explanation.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> If

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looking

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at the 2nd from Karakamsha in

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> the

>

>>> rasi

>>>

>>>>>>>> chart,

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> as you

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right, you

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could not have both Mesha and

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>> Vrishabha

>>>>>

>>>>>>> or

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Tula

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> and

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vrishchika

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rasi

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2nd from the Karakamsha, is

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> that

>

>>> not

>>>

>>>>> so?

>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Similarly

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> if in

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> navamsha

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chart

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 2nd from Karakamsha is to

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> be

>

>>> seen,

>>>

>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> 2nd

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> could be

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> navamshas.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Take care,

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I though you meant

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> so.Because in

>

>>>>>>>> subsequent

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> lines

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> we

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Swamsha

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Karakamsha being used

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> for

>

>>> the

>>>

>>>>> same

>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> purpose.But if

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are other places where

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> swamsha

>>>

>>>>>>> is

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> used

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> for

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> say

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lagnamsha ,then

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i can trust you if you can

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> point me

>>>

>>>>> to

>>>>>

>>>>>>>> that.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> This

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem and in no way it

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> will

>

>>> affect

>>>

>>>>>>> us.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Venus and Mars can ofcourse

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> have

>

>>>>> their

>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Vargas

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> in a

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> single

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rashi or

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bhava.Venus can have

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> navamsha

>

>>>>>>> there,Mars

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> can

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> have

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> navamsha

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there,Venus can have

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> Trimshamsha

>

>>>>>>>> there,Mars

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> can

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> have

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trimshamsha

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there,they both can have

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> drekkana

>>>

>>>>>>> there

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> etc

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> etc.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus sage is talking about

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> Bhrigu

>>>

>>>>> and

>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Angara

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> both

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> (as

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> identified gramattically)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> having

>

>>>>> varga

>>>>>

>>>>>>>> there

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> and

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> it is

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you note the next line -

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> Sage

>

>>> is

>>>

>>>>>>> talking

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> about

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> both

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Venus

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mars

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> joining or aspecting the 2nd

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> from

>>>

>>>>>>>> Karakamsha.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >From my experience -Mars +

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> Venus

>>>

>>>>>>> creates

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> certin

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behaviour.I

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feel

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too would have experienced

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> this.Why

>>>

>>>>>>> are

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> you

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> going

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> for

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> varga

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> owned by just one of them

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> and

>

>>> that

>>>

>>>>> too

>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> without a

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> planetary

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> link is

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really worrying me.Shri

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> Rath has

>

>>>>>>>> translated

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> so,i

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree.But i

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inner feeling that Shri Rath

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> will

>>>

>>>>>>>> definitely

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> correct

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> benfit of jyotish community.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am surprised as to why

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> you say

>

>>>>>>> so.That

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> they

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> together.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Respect

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pardeep

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- In

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> <%

>>>

> 40>

>

>>>>> <%40>

>>>>>

>>>>>>> <%40>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> <%40>

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40>

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> 40>

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> 40>

>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> 40>,

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Pradeep,

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have never said that I

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> do

>

>>> not

>>>

>>>>>>> think

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> that

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> Swamsha

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Karakamsha

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different where the

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> context

>

>>>>> demands

>>>>>

>>>>>>> so.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> At

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> same

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time I

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grammar can be put to

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> rest to

>

>>> in

>>>

>>>>> the

>>>>>

>>>>>>>> name of

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context,

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sound

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course if you want

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> contextual

>>>

>>>>>>>> translation

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> only,

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one can

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly say that

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> the " Meshadi

>>>

>>>>>>> raashige

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> swaamshe "

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always be

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> translated as " Falling in

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> Mesha

>>>

>>>>>>>> navamsha in

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> Mesha

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rasi

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc. " .

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By the way " Tatra

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> Bhrigwonkaraka

>>>

>>>>>>>> Varge " ,

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> that

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> you

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mention, does

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean varga of both Venus

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> and

>

>>> mars,

>>>

>>>>>>> but

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> of

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> varga

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> of

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Venus OR

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mars,

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> due to

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the grammar only. varga

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> of two

>

>>>>>>> planets

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> can

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> not

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> fall

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bhava/amsha/rasi whether

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> in

>

>>> rasi

>>>

>>>>> or

>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Navamsha or

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> any

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chart.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Take care,

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Grammatically,what you

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> are

>

>>>>> saying

>>>>>

>>>>>>> is

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> also

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> true.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But Jyotish defintions

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> play

>

>>> a

>>>

>>>>>>>> preceding

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> role

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> in

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choosing

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grammatical meaning.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example one meaning

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> of

>

>>>>>>>> labhe ,Swamshe

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> etc

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> is

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 11th

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> swamsha etc.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But if we go by that we

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> will

>

>>>>>>>> definitely

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> translate

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> swamshe in

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meshadi

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rashige as ''in

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>> Swamsha'',thereby

>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> translating

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> it

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> full

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chart.This as you too

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> agree,then

>>>

>>>>>>>> cannot

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> pass

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test,of

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subsequent shlokas.I

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> understand

>>>

>>>>>>> gladly

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> that

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> you

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree that

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> swamsha and karakamsha

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> are

>

>>> the

>>>

>>>>>>> same.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So the context decides

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> plural/singular

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> and not

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessarily

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ''E''

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as you have rightly

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> mentioned.

>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But in essence what i

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> want

>

>>> to

>>>

>>>>> say

>>>>>

>>>>>>>> is ''E''

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> does

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean ''in

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the'' as you have

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> interpreted.Labheshe is

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> an

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example.Karake

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is an

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus it can very well

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> mean

>

>>>>> Varga of

>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Shukra and

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mars-

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which can

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then be

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> six vargas or one varga.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> (Not

>

>>>>>>> lordship)

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> Varge -

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tatra -(There) In the

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> second

>

>>>>> from

>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Karakamsha

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Varga or Vargas of

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> Venus and

>

>>>>> Mars

>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now why should we need

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> two

>

>>>>>>>> qualifiesrs for

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> destination

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2nd

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from karakamsha 2)in the

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> vargas

>>>

>>>>>>> of?)-

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> if

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> we had

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> planet

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your interpretation is

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>> right.That

>>>>>

>>>>>>>> planet

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> will

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question -

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who is in the vargas

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> of ?

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Similarly - Swamshad

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> dhane

>

>>>>> Shukrar

>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Swamshad dhane is

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> already

>

>>>>> pointing

>>>>>

>>>>>>> to

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> destination-

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another ''in the''

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> vargas

>

>>> of.

>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the other hand if we

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> say

>

>>> in

>>>

>>>>> the

>>>>>

>>>>>>> 2nd

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> from

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> karakamsha if

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> varga

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mars and venus are

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> present,it

>>>

>>>>> fits

>>>>>

>>>>>>> in

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grammatically.Moreover

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i had

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned rashi lordship

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> without

>>>

>>>>>>>> planetary

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> link

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (placement/amsha

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is too general.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Respect

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pradeep

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- In

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>> <%40>

>>>

>>>>> <%40> <%

>>>>> 40>

>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> <%40>

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40>

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> 40>

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> 40>

>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>> 40>

>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> 40>,

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chandrashekhar46@>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> wrote:

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Pradeep,

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I may be wrong but

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> the " E " by

>>>

>>>>>>> itself

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> does

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> not

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plural.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> word Shadvarga

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> indicating

>

>>> 6

>>>

>>>>>>> Vargas

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> that

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> is

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> one

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> group

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (though it

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contains

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more than one unit)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> and

>

>>>>>>> so " Varge " ,

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> singular is

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> " E " means " in " . I

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> would be

>

>>>>> happy

>>>>>

>>>>>>> if

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> an

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> example

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of " Varge "

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plural

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be given.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not at all think

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> that

>

>>>>>>> Vargaka

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> or

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Varga

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> is

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> singular and

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vargake

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Varge is plural, at

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> all.

>

>>> Both

>>>

>>>>> the

>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> manner of

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> word

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indicates singular.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> it is

>

>>> no

>>>

>>>>> use

>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> projecting

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what is

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clearly

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Saptami

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vibhakti and singular

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> as

>

>>>>> being a

>>>>>

>>>>>>>> plural

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> word. If

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Varga

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used as

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dvivachana it may

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> become " VargyoH "

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> or " VargeSu "

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (for

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bahuvachan)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and not

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Varge. Perhaps some

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> Sanskrit

>>>

>>>>>>>> scholar on

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> list

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comment

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on this.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, much as I would

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> like

>

>>> it to

>>>

>>>>>>>> resolve,

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remains

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unresolved.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vijayadas_pradeep

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> wrote:

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Chandrashekhar

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> ji

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will give you a

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> relevant

>>>

>>>>>>>> example to

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> explain

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> VarGE

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used in

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context of plural.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lagna Shad-VargaKE -

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> Is

>

>>>>>>> pointing

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> to

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> all

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vargas -

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Plural.You

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> note

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the grammatical

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> ending

>>>

>>>>> is

>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> with ''E''

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> showing

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plurals

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too can

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressed with such

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> an

>

>>>>> ending.

>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now from

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> Vrishamsha''Ka''

>>>

>>>>> and

>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Tulamsha

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example we

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclude

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> VargaKA and VarGA

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> can be

>

>>>>> used

>>>>>

>>>>>>> for

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> same

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> purpose in

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ekavachan or

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> singular form and

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> VargaKE

>>>

>>>>> and

>>>>>

>>>>>>>> VarGE

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> can be

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bahuvachan or

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Plural form.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope this may

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> help us

>

>>> in

>>>

>>>>>>>> resolving

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> our

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Respect

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pradeep

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --------------------

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> ----

>

>>> ----

>>>

>>>>> ---

>>>>>

>>>>>>> ---

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> ----

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> ----

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> ----

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No virus found in

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> this

>

>>>>> incoming

>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> message.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Checked by AVG Free

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> Edition.

>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Version: 7.5.446 /

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> Virus

>

>>>>>>> Database:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 269.10.0/886 -

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Release

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Non-text portions of

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> this

>

>>>>>>> message

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> have

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> been

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> removed]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> ----

>

>>> ----

>>>

>>>>> ---

>>>>>

>>>>>>> ---

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> ----

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> ----

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> ----

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -------

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No virus found in this

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> incoming

>>>

>>>>>>>> message.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Checked by AVG Free

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> Edition.

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>> Database:

>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> 269.10.0/886 -

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Release

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Non-text portions of this

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> message

>>>

>>>>>>> have

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> been

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> removed]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----------------------------

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> ----

>

>>> ----

>>>

>>>>> ---

>>>>>

>>>>>>> ---

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> ----

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> ----

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> ----

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No virus found in this

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> incoming

>

>>>>>>> message.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> Database:

>>>

>>>>>>>>>> 269.10.0/886 -

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Release

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Non-text portions of this

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> message

>

>>>>> have

>>>>>

>>>>>>> been

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> removed]

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --------------------------------

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> ----

>

>>> ----

>>>

>>>>> ---

>>>>>

>>>>>>> ---

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> ----

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> ----

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> ----

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -------

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No virus found in this incoming

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> message.

>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> Database:

>

>>>>>>>> 269.10.0/886 -

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> Release

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Non-text portions of this message

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> have

>>>

>>>>> been

>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> removed]

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> ----

>

>>> ----

>>>

>>>>> ---

>>>>>

>>>>>>> ---

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> ----

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> ----

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No virus found in this incoming

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> message.

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> 269.10.0/886 -

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Release

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Non-text portions of this message

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> have

>

>>> been

>>>

>>>>>>>> removed]

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -------

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> ----

>

>>> ----

>>>

>>>>> ---

>>>>>

>>>>>>> ---

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> ----

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>> 269.10.2/890 -

>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Release

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> Date:

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Non-text portions of this message have

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> been

>

>>>>> removed]

>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----------

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> ----

>

>>> ----

>>>

>>>>> ---

>>>>>

>>>>>>> ---

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> ------

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> 269.10.2/890 -

>>>

>>>>>>> Release

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Date:

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>> removed]

>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------------

>>>>>>>>>>>>

> ----

>

>>> ----

>>>

>>>>> --

>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> ------

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

>>>>>>>>>>>>

> 269.10.2/890 -

>

>>>>> Release

>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Date:

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been

>>>>>>>>>>>

> removed]

>

>>>>>>>>>> -------------------

>>>>>>>>>>

> ----

>

>>> --

>>>

>>>>>>> ---

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> ------

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.4/896 -

>>>>>>>>>>

>>> Release

>>>

>>>>>>> Date:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> 7/11/2007 4:09 PM

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>